Volume 23, Part 4 14th October, 1966 pp. 129-192

THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

The Official Organ of

THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Contents Page Notices prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology:

Date of commencement by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of voting on applications published in the Bulletin of

Zoological Nomenclature ...... 129

Notices of the possible use by the International Commission on Zoological

Nomenclature of its plenary powers in certain cases ...... 129

{continued inside back wrapper)

LONDON:

Printed by Order of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature and

Sold on behalf of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature by the International Trust at its Publications Office 14, Belgrave Square, London, S.W.I. 1966

Price Two Pounds Ten Shillings

0All rights reserved)

Original from and digitized by National University of Singapore Libraries INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

A. The Officers of the Commission

Acting President: Dr. L. B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (28 August 1963) Secretary: Dr. G. Owen Evans (British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, S.W.7)(31 May 1960) Assistant Secretary: Dr. W. E. China (British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, S.W.7) (21 May 1962)

B. The Members of the Commission

(Arranged in order of election or of most recent re-election)

Professor Enrico Tortonese (Museo di Storia Naturale "G. Doria", Genova, Italy) (16 December 1954) Professor Per Brinck (Lunds Universitets Zoologiska Institution, Lund, Sweden) (19 May 1958) Professor H. Boschma (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (23 July 1958) Dr. Henning Lvmcue (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) (23 July 1958) Professor Pierre Bonnet (Universite de Toulouse, France) (23 July 1958) Professor Tadeusz Jaczewski (Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland) (23 July 1958) Professor Dr. Robert Mertens (Natur-museum u. Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Frankfurt a.m., Germany) (23 July 1958) Dr. D. V. Obruchev (Palaeontological Institute, Academy of Sciences, Moscow B-l\, U.S.S.R.) (5 November 1958) Professor Tohru Ucheda (Department of Zoology, Hokkaido University, Japan) (24 March 1959) Professor Dr. Raphael Alvarado (Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales, Madrid, Spain) (31 May 1960) Dr. Gwilym Owen Evans (British Museum(NaturalHistory),London) (31 May 1960) (Secretary) Dr. E. G. Munroe (Canada Department of Agriculture, Division of Entomology, Ottawa, Canada) (9 June 1961) {Councillor) Dr. W. E. China {British Museum {Natural History), London) (21 May 1962) {Assistant Secretary) Professor E. Binder {Museum d'Histoire Naturelle, Geneva, Switzerland) (21 May 1962) Professor Dr. Afranio do Amaral (Instituto Butantan, Sao Paulo, Brazil) (28 August 1963) Professor Harold E. Vokes (University of Tulane, Department of Geology, New Orleans, Louisana, U.S.A.) (28 August 1963) Dr. Norman R. Stoll (Rockefeller Institute, New York, N.Y., U.S.A.) (28 August 1963) {Councillor) Dr. L. B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (28 August 1963) {Acting President) Professor Ernst Mayr (Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.) (28 August 1963) (Councillor) Dr. J. Forest (Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle, Paris, France) (28 August 1963) (iCouncillor) Dr. Carl L. Hubbs (Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, La Jolla California, U.S.A.) (28 August 1963) Dr. Otto Kraus (Senckenbergische Naturforschende Gesellschaft, Frankfurt a.M., Germany) (28 August 1963) Dr. W. D. L. Ride (Western Australian Museum, Perth, Western Australia) (28 August 1963) Dr. Curtis W. Sabrosky (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Entomology Research Division, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) (28 August 1963) Professor George Gaylord Simpson (Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.) (28 August 1963)

Original from and digitized by National University of Singapore Libraries BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Volume 23, Part 4 (pp. 129-192) 14th October, 1966

Second Instalments of Official Lists and Indexes of Names have now been published at the following prices, excluding postage

Official List of Generic Names in Zoology £1 0 0 Official List of Specific Names in Zoology £1 0 0 Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology 10 0 Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology £1 0 0 Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology 10 0 Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology 10 0

Orders to: Publications Officer, International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, 14 Belgrave Square, London, S.W.I

Original from and digitized by National University of Singapore Libraries 130 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

NOTICES (a) Date of Commencement of Voting.—In normal circumstances the Commission starts to vote on applications published in the Bulletin ofZoological Nomenclature six months after the publication of each application. Any zoologist who wishes to comment on any of the applications in the present part is invited to send his contribution, in duplicate, to the Secretariat of the Commission as quickly as possible, and in any case in time to reach the Secretariat before the close of the six-month period. (b) Possible use of the Plenary Powers.—The possible use by the Commission of its plenary powers is involved in the following applications published in the present part of the Bulletin: (1) Suppression of Voluta episcopalis Linnaeus, 1758 (). Z.N.(S.) 1728. (2) Suppression of Clupea flosmaris Richardson, 1846 (Pisces) Z.N.(S.) 1740. (3) Suppression of Sphyraena acus Lacepede, 1803 and Belona argalus Lesueur, 1821 (Pisces). Z.N.(S.) 1723. (4) Designation of a type- for Cosmopterix Hiibner, 1825 (Insecta, Lepidoptera). Z.N.(S.) 1742. (5) Suppression of Macrochoeta Macquart, 1851 (Insecta, Diptera). Z.N.(S.) 1745. (6) Suppression of Amphisbaena mildei Peters, 1878 (Reptilia). Z.N.(S.) 1746. (7) Suppression of Scoptes Hiibner, [1819] (Insecta, Lepidoptera). Z.N.(S.) 1748. (8) Suppression of Cornufer Tschudi, 1838, and Cornufer unicolor Tschudi, 1838 (Amphibia). Z.N.(S.) 1747. (9) Suppression of Rana maculata Daudin, 1801 (Amphibia). Z.N.(S.) 1750. (10) Emendation of stenopodinae Stal, 1859 to stenopodainae (Insecta, ). Z.N.(S.) 1747. (11) Suppression of Proteocordylus Eichwald, 1831, and Palaeotriton Fitzinger, 1837 (Amphibia). Z.N.(S.) 1751. (12) Suppression of Phelsuma ornatum Gray, 1825 (Sauria). Z.N.(S.) 1752. (13) Suppression of Hippocampus erectus Perry, (1810) (Pisces). Z.N.(S.) 1753. (14) Validation of Tectarius Valenciennes, 1832 (Gastropoda). Z.N.(S.) 1754. (15) Suppression of Hippella Moerch, 1861 (Pelecypoda). Z.N.(S.) 1755. (16) Suppression of Truncatulina dumblei Applin, 1925 (Foraminifera). Z.N.(S.) 1756. (17) Designation of a type-species for Neolycaena de Niceville, 1890 (Insecta, Lepidoptera). Z.N.(S.) 1758. (18) Suppression of Cellia errabunda Swellengrebel, 1925 (Insecta, Diptera). Z.N.(S.) 1760. (19) Designation of a type-species for Enithares Spinola, 1837 (Insecta, Hemiptera). Z.N.(S.) 1762.

Original from and digitized by National University of Singapore Libraries Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 131

COMMENT ON THE PROPOSALS RELATING TO MIRIS AND MIRIDAE (INSECTA, HEMIPTERA). Z.N.(S.) 1090 (see volume 21, pages 263-267; 22, pages 122-133) By T. Jaczewski (Zoological Institute, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw)

In connection with the recently published text of the modified proposal of I. M. Kerzhner concerning the addition to the Official List of the family-group name miridae and other names involved in the case I wish to make the following supple¬ mentary comment: 1. The new proposal of Kerzhner {Bull. zool. Nomencl. 22 : 128-133) differs in a marked way from the former proposal advanced in the original application by Kerzhner & Tryapitsin (ibid. 21 : 263-267). 2. Alternative C of the modified proposal, which Kerzhner seems to consider the most appropriate, means in fact a return to the practice which prevailed in hemiptero- logical nomenclature in the period from 1888-1943 and was based to a large extent on the wrong assumption that Fabricius himself " designated " Cimex dolobratus Linnaeus, 1758, as type-species of Miris Fabricius, 1794. At the same time alternative C of the new proposal is a return to the type-species selection for Miris Fabricius made by Curtis in 1838, and repeated by Westwood in 1840. 3. I am unable to agree, however, that it would be a " return to Hahn's conception of the " (Kerzhner, op. cit.: 129). Hahn has never fixed a type-species for Miris Fabricius, and as to Cimex dolobratus, he placed it at first in the genus Miris Fabricius (Wanz. Ins. 2, 1834: 75-76, pi. 53, fig. 160), but Herrich-Schaffer transferred it later to the genus Lopus Hahn (op. cit. 3, 1835: 45-46, pi. 86, figs. 261-262). 4. I see also in this case no reason to apply Art. 70 of the Code as neither Latreille in 1810, nor Curtis in 1838 nor Westwood in 1840 misidentitled the species they selected as type-species for Miris Fabricius. 5. It is, of course, for specialists in the miridae to decide whether the formally valid, first type-selection for Miris Fabricius made by Latreille in 1810 should be maintained, or whether the Commission should set it aside under the plenary powers and fix, following Curtis, 1838, Cimex dolobratus Linnaeus to be the type-species. 6. I quite agree with Kerzhner (in his modified proposal) that the second procedure would be more in accordance with the taxonomic concept of the genus Miris Fabricius initiated by Fallen in 1807 and accepted by most hemipterologists in the XlXth and the first half of the XXth centuries. Being no specialist in the miridae I do not feel competent to suggest whether it would be advisable to return to that concept now, after over 20 years of almost consistent use of the generic name Miris Fabricius in accordance with the type-species designation made by Latreille. It should be recalled, for instance, in this connection that in the recent monograph of the miridae of France (Wagner et Weber, Faune de France, 67, Paris, 1964) the generic name Miris Fabricius is used with the type-species Cimex striatus Linnaeus (op. cit.: 183). 7. As to the family-group name miridae, in case the type-species of Miris Fabricius should be fixed under the plenary powers as Cimex dolobratus, this family-group name should be also derived from the generic name conceived accordingly; in other words from the generic name Miris Fabricius as understood by Curtis, 1838, by Westwood, 1840, or by Reuter, 1888. The oldest family-group name based on Miris with type- species dolobratus was mirides Gorski, 1852, published with a direct and unambiguous reference to Miris Curtis. 8. Thus, if the modified proposal of Kerzhner is accepted by the Commission, then point (5) (a) of the proposal (op. cit.: 133) should be replaced by the following: (a) miridae (correction of mirides) Gorski, 1852 (type-genus Miris Fabricius, 1794) with a ruling that in accordance with Art. 40b of the Code it takes the date 1833 and is to be considered a senior subjective synonym and homonym of mirides Hahn, [1833].

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 23, Part 4. October 1966.

Original from and digitized by National University of Singapore Libraries 132 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

9. Point (6) (a) of the modified proposal of Kerzhner should be replaced by the following: (a) mirides Gorski, 1852 (an incorrect spelling for miridae Gorski, 1852). 10. Points (1) (c), (2) (b), (3) (c) and (5) (a) of my comment on the original proposal of Kerzhner and Tryapitsin {Bull. zool. Nomencl. 22 : 127-128) should be incorporated at appropriate places in the new proposal of Kerzhner. SUPPORT FOR SUPPRESSION OF XYLEBORUS BOWDICH, 1825. Z.N.(S.) 1720. (see volume 22, pages 269-270) By D. E. Bright (Ent. Res. Inst., Canada Dept. Agric., Ottawa, Ontario) I fully endorse Mr. R. T. Thompson's application for suppression of Xyleborus Bowdich, 1825, in favor of Xyleborus Eichhoff, 1864. His application plainly and concisely stated the reasons for this action and I can add nothing more except my support. Xyleborus Bowdich, 1825, described from a " worm " boring in orange trees plainly represents an unrecognizable form; in fact, it cannot be properly placed in any family. On the other hand, Xyleborus Eichhoff, 1864 is an extremely common genus of Scolytidae. It is worldwide in distribution and contains at least one thousand names. The genus includes many noxious pests of agriculture and research is currently being conducted on the economic effect of numerous species in many countries. A rapid examination of the literature from 1959 to 1963 showed the following numbers of references from various regions of the world: Southeast Asia, 13; , 11; Europe, 9; Orient, 2 and Central America, 1. Although there is disagreement among authorities concerning the limits of the genus, all of them use the name Xyleborus in the sense of Eichhoff. These problems will gradually be resolved by more extensive studies. To follow the Law of Priority in this case would cause considerable confusion and would serve no useful purpose. In the interest of stability, I add my support to Thompson's proposal.

COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED SUPPRESSION OF ANOPHELES AFRICANUS THEOBALD, 1901. Z.N.(S.) 1722 (see volume 22, page 324) By P. F. Mattingly (British Museum (Natural History), London) I should like to support the application by Dr. Gillies for suppression of the name Anopheles africanus Theobald, 1901. The species in question is of no importance as a malaria vector, but it is very common and has been many times recorded in the literature under the name obscurus.

By J. A. Reid {British Museum {Natural History), London) I agree with Dr. Gillies' reasons for this proposal. Namely that africanus is very probably a senior synonym of obscurus Grunberg, 1905, but that the latter is the name by which this species of mosquito has always been known, whilst africanus does not seem to have been used for 58 years after its first publication. Consequently, for the sake of stability it is very desirable that africanus should be suppressed, and I support Dr. Gillies' application.

COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSALS REGARDING CHRYSOPINAE IN NEUROPTERA AND DIPTERA. Z.N.(S.) 1725 (see volume 22, pages 332-333) By D. E. Kimmins {British Museum {Natural History), London) I would like to support the above application by Dr. Bo Tjeder in connection with the homonymy of the subfamily names based upon Chrysopa Leach, 1815, and Chrysops Meigen, 1803. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 23, Part 4. October 1966.

Original from and digitized by National University of Singapore Libraries Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 133

I am in favour of the proposal set out in para. 5 rather than that in para. 4, since in addition to the arguments there expounded, I feel that the emended name chrysop- sinae is a better-sounding and more easily pronounced name than chrysopainae or chrysopatdae.

By F. M. Carpenter (Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass., U.S.A.)

I am writing to lend my full support to the proposal of Mr. Bo Tjeder that the International Commission use its plenary powers to validate chrysopidae and chryso- pinae in their accustomed sense in the order Neuroptera. I also endorse the several other proposals submitted by Mr. Tjeder in connection with the foregoing recom¬ mendation. The identity of the subfamily names based upon the genus Chrysopa Leach, on the one hand, and Chrysops Meigen, on the other, will continue to cause confusion until action is taken by the International Commission. The history of this nomenclatural problem certainly indicates that, with Chrysopa the type-genus of the family chryso¬ pidae, no confusion would follow the acceptance of the genus as the type-genus of the subfamily chrysopinae. On the other hand, the adoption of the subfamily name chrysopainae for the genus Chrysopa would be certain to cause difficulties for many years. The dipterous name chrysopinae has not had nearly the extensive use that the corresponding name has had at both family and subfamily level in the Neuroptera.

COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSAL TO REJECT MITRA PERLATA [RODING], 1798 (GASTROPODA). Z.N.(S.) 1726 (see volume 22, page 334) By Harald A. Rehder (Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.)

Dr. R. Tucker Abbott has shown me the comments he has made regarding the application in question by Mr. Walter O. Cernohorsky, and I agree with his statements. It seems indisputable that Mitra perlata Roding, 1798, is a nomen nudum, since Roding does not cite any figures. As Abbott points out, the " process of elimination " —a dubious method at best—cannot be used here because Roding, after bestowing the name Mitra imperialis on Gmelin's a variety of Volutapertusa, gives two names: Mitra perlata and M. capucina to varieties of Gmelin's species, but in neither instance does he use " var. p so we do not know if either or any of them are meant for this variety. The rules for nomina nuda should be strictly adhered to, and this is particularly important in the case of the Museum Boltenianum, which contains many new names used by Roding for varieties of Gmelin's names, without being characterized or defined in any way. Thus it appears that this application needs no action by the Commission, other than to declare that this case falls outside of their sphere of operation. By Jean M. Cate (Los Angeles, California, U.S.A.)

I wish to go on record as supporting this request, for the same reasons stated in the petition. Furthermore, as a worker in this family-group, I have on file well over 2500 names used in by numerous authors in this family subsequent to Roding, and although the file is not yet complete, it does cover the more significant post-Linnaean works in Mitridae, and the name Mitra perlata does not appear in the file. There are, however, numerous references, with adequate figures, to Mitra chrysos- toma Broderip, 1836, and the species is well known by this name in important collec¬ tions all over the world. It would seem proper to suppress the name Mitra perlata Roding, 1798, on the basis of these findings and the arguments set forth by Mr. Cernohorsky in his petition.

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 23, Part 4. October 1966.

Original from and digitized by National University of Singapore Libraries 134 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

CONSERVATION DE THEREVA SUBCOLEOPTRATA (F. 1798) COMME TYPE DE PHASIA LATREILLE 1804 (INSECTA DIPTERA).* Z.N.(S.) 1706 (see volume 22, pages 243-245, volume 23, pages 9-11) par Claude Dupuis (Museum National cPEIistoire Naturelle, 57 rue Cuvier, Paris 5e, France) La proposition de Herting (1965) de remplacer Thereva subcoleoptrata (F. 1798) comme type de Phasia Latr. 1804 par Ectophasia rubra (Girschner 1888) Dupuis 19571, se fonde sur une critique de Latreille, sur une eventuelle erreur d'identification de subcoleoptrata par Fabricius et sur diverses considerations d'usage. La documentation que j'ai reunie, au cours de vingt annees d'etudes sur les , me permet d'apporter ci-apres, relativement a ce cas, un faisceau coherent d'arguments, pour la plupart meconnus de notre collogue. Apres examen et discussion de ceux qui concernent Latreille, puis Fabricius, puis les consequences possibles de la proposition en cause, je serai dans l'obligation de conclure, avec Sabrosky (1966), au rejet de celle-ci. I—LES ACTIONS TAXONOMIQUES DE LATREILLE Herting et Sabrosky, I.e., s'ecartent de Dupuis (1949) dans le detail de l'interpreta- tion juridique des actions de Latreille; le premier doute, en outre, de leur fondement zoologique. Ces deux aspects de la question ayant des consequences nomenclatoriales differentes doivent etre examines independamment. A—PORTfiE JURIDIQUE DES ACTIONS DE LATREILLE Les actions a considerer sont l'introduction du nom Phasia et la designation du type du genre correspondant. 1—Signification de l'introduction du nom Phasia Phasia apparait originellement dans Latreille (18046: 195) sans espece incluse nommement citee, mais avec une diagnose et deux synonymes: " les Thereves de M. Fab.", " mes mouches applaties ". Son introduction correspond done (cf. Dupuis 1949) au remplacement de Thereva F. 1798 (preemploye dans Thereva Latr. 1796) par un nomen novum, et non pas a la creation d'un taxon. L'intention de Latreille a cet egard ne fait aucun doute, car: —des 1802, il traite a part de ses " Thereves " (p. 440) et de ses " Mouches apla- ties " (p. 456), incluant dans celles-ci: "les thereves de Fabricius—Thereva coleoptrata F. etc.—les chrysogastres de Meigen " (ces dernieres ne seront jamais plus citees); —en 1803, p. 122, il reaffirme la synonymie entre ses " Mouches applaties " et " les Thereves de M. Fabricius " et en 1804a, p. 137, il deplore que la designation de Thereve lui ait ete " enlevee " par Fabricius; —en 1809, p. 296, il regrette que le nom Thereva (qu'il avait substitue en 1796 a Bibio Fabr. non Geoffr.) ait ete " usurpe " par Fabricius: —en 1817, p. 505, il rappelle que Phasia existait prelablement en tant que taxon (" cette coupe generique ") sous le nom de Thereva F. auquel il a simplement " substitue " celui de Phasia. Cette position de Latreille sur l'homonymie de Thereva F. etait parfaitement connue (Fallen 1820: 2) et meme reconnue des contemporains (Wiedemann 1817a: 6, 1818: 45, 1830: 262; Meigen 1820: 115, 1824: 185). En consequence, Phasia renferme, des I'origine—18046—les Six Thereva de Fabricius 1798 (cf. Dupuis 1949). Ceci correspond, la encore, a la position de Latreille qui parle constamment (1802, 1803, 1804a, 18046, 1805) des Thereves de Fabricius, au pluriel, qui, des 1802, mentionne " Th. coleoptrata F., etc. . .", qui cite, en 1805, celle-ci mais egalement "la Thereve hemiptere de Fabricius" et, en 1809, quatre especes.

* Contributions a l'etude des Phasiinae cimicophages. 32. 1 Herting donne "Phasia rubra Girschner 1886 ". Le statut exact de ce Diptere est Ecto¬ phasia rubra (Girschner 1888: 231 sub. var.) Dupuis: 1957:1580, 1963: 112. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 23, Part 4. October 1966.

Original from and digitized by National University of Singapore Libraries Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 135

2—Procedure de designation du type Latreille 18046 n'ayant inclu nommement aucune espece dans Phasia, la designation du type resulte necessairement d'une publication ulterieure. Selon Sabrosky (1966), cette publication est celle de Latreille 1805 ou Thereva subcoleoptrata F. (par lapsus " coleoptrata "), seule espece citee (. . . sous forme latine, car Th. hemiptera est mentionnee conditionnellement sous forme vernaculaire), devient le type de Phasia par monotypie subsequente. J'ai personnellement soutenu (1949) que le nom. nov. Phasia renfermant, des l'origine, toutes les Thereva de Fabricius 1798, la designation de son type devrait resulter d'un choix formel parmi celles-ci, non exprime en 1805. Ce choix intentionnel (cf. Opinion XI de la CINZ) d'un type ayant ete fait par Latreille 1810 en faveur de Th. subcoleoptrata (p. 444 sans lapsus!), mon interpretation conduit evidemment au meme resultat que celle de Sabrosky2). J'ai toutefois tenu a rappeler les deux, car, si la Commission confirmait le type de Phasia, elle devrait preciser quand et comment il a ete designe. B—VALIDITY ZOOLOGIQUE DES ACTIONS DE LATREILLE Comrae beaucoup d'auteurs de son temps—a l'exception notable de Fabricius (v. infra)—Latreille connaissait sans doute assez peu les especes de ses Phasia. Gene¬ rate bien plus que specigraphe, il ne donne, en 1802, 1803, 18046, 1809, 1810, aucune description specifique de ces Dipteres; il precise d'ailleurs, en 1802 p. 122, a propos du genre " Mouche ", qu'ayant " embrasse la totalite des Insectes, il [lui] a ete impossible jusqu'a ce jour de fixer specialement [ses] regards sur ce genre." Ceci ne diminue en rien la portee de ses deux actions taxonomiques, car, d'une part, celles-ci se fondent uniquement sur des textes, et d'autre part, Latreille n'a jamais commis la confusion entre Ph. subcoleoptrata et les Ectophasia que suppose Herting. Ces deux propositions se demontrent aisement. 1—Latreille et le recours aux textes En dehors de la creation du nom. nov., de la designation du type et de trois donnees originales3) sans incidence sur celles-ci, tout l'apport de Latreille sur les Phasia d'Europe est emprunte a Fabricius. En effet: 1—les Thereva de Fabricius servent de references, des 1802, et en 1803, aux " mouches aplaties ", puis, en 1804b et 1805, aux Phasia lorsque ce nom remplace Thereva et " mouches aplaties 2—la premiere des Thereva de Fabricius, i.e. subcoleoptrata, est toujours citee comme exemple (1802, 18046, 1805) ou comme type (1810); 3—les diagnoses et descriptions latines de Fabricius 1794 fournissent les elements qui, traduits mot a mot en frangais, constituent la description de 1805 et celles de 1817; 4—les references iconographiques de Fabricius 1805 sont reproduites en 1809 et 1817 sans discussion (alors que la pi. 71 fig. 6 de Schaeffer 1767 represente Ectophasia rubra et non pas Allophora hemiptera4) et que la subcoleoptrata des pi. 13 et 14 de Panzer 1800 correspond a hemiptera)', 5—les localites mentionnees par Fabricius ou les illustrateurs qu'il cite sont toutes reprises en 1817, sans addition autre que subcoleoptrata aux environs de Paris (v. infra);

2 L'interpretation de Sabrosky parait inspiree de CNZ 69 a II1. Je dois a ce propos observer: 1 °) que la raison d'etre de cette disposition du CNZ n'est nullement evidente, 2°) que le CNZ ne precise pas si la disposition s'applique aux genres nominaux representes par un nom. nov. et ce que vaut la reference a un genre nominal preexistant, 3°) que les textes frangais et anglais ne correspondent pas; il faudrait lire en frangais: "la simple reference a une publication contenant les noms des especes ne constitue pas par elle-meme l'inclusion des especes dans un genre nominal ". 3 II s'agit, en 1809, de la synonymie de Musca nebulosa Panzer 1798 avec Th. obesa F. et de la mention d'une figure de Coquebert comme variete de crassipennis (v. infra), puis, en 1817, de l'indication de subcoleoptrata aux environs de Paris (v. infra). 4 Sur l'importance des determinations de cette figure par Fabricius, v. infra.

Original from and digitized by National University of Singapore Libraries 136 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

6—le souci de preserver la purete de l'acception fabriceenne de Th. subcoleoptrata s'exprime sans ambiguiite par des reserves sur la " Th. subcoleoptrata " de la planche de Schellenberg5 et sur le " Conops subcoleoptratus " de Linne6. En ces conditions, il est evident que la creation du nom. nov. Phasia et la designa¬ tion de son type reposent uniquement et sciemment sur des textes7—ceux de Fabricius —ce qui constitue, dans l'une comme dans l'autre de ces actions nomenclatoriales, une procedure legitime et habituelle. 2—Latreille et la determination de Phasia subcoleoptrata Herting suggere que Latreille aurait confondu Ph. subcoleoptrata avec une Ecto- phasia (sans d'ailleurs preciser laquelle). II fonde son opinion sur un nom " vernacu- laire " de Latreille et sur mon explication de l'etymologie de Phasia. Ces arguments philologiques ne resistent pas a l'examen et, de plus, l'oeuvre de Latreille renferme des preuves zoologiques qu'il n'a jamais commis une telle confusion. (a) Le nom " Phasie ailes-epaisses " Lorsque Phasia crassipennis n'est pas citee, le nom " vernaculaire " " Phasie ailes- epaisses " applique par Latreille (1805: 379) a Ph. subcoleoptrata est certes une traduc¬ tion non litterale de ce nom latin, mais cela ne signifie nullement que 1'auteur ait en vue crassipennis. En effet: —" Phasie ailes-epaisses " s'accompagne du nom latin Ph. subcoleoptrata et d'une description dont les elements sont tires des diagnose et description de Syrphus subcoleoptratus F. 1794 et non de celles de S. crassipennis; —" ailes-epaisses " s'explique sans difficulte par " alis crassioribus " dans sub¬ coleoptrata de Fabricius 1794, voire par " alis praemorsis externe crassioribus " dans subcoleoptrata de Linne 1767; —les deux publications nomenclatorialement significatives (18046, 1810) ne citent pas de nom vernaculaire; —un nom vulgaire ne fait jamais foi, a fortiori un neologisme qui ne represente que le travestissement pseudo-vernaculaire d'un nom savant. Lorsque Phasia crassipennis est citee, Latreille et ses continuateurs, manifestement conscients d'une confusion possible, modifient la terminologie vernaculaire. L'on trouve alors: —dans Latreille 1817, " Phasie coleopteriforme " pour subcoleoptrata (avec une description comparable a celle de 1805), puis " Phasie hemiptere " et " Phasie ailes-epaisses " pour hemiptera et crassipennis respectivement; —dans Le Peletier & Serville 1825, " Phasie ailes-epaisses " pour leur subcoleop¬ trata, mais " Phasie crassipenne " pour crassipennis; —dans Dumeril 1829, " Thereve sous-engainante " pour subcoleoptrata, puis " Thereve hemiptere " et " Thereve crassipenne " pour hemiptera et crassipennis respectivement. La traduction malheureuse de Latreille 1805 constitue une negligence banale qui n'affecte en rien l'acception strictement fabriceenne de subcoleoptrata par cet auteur; les remedes qu'y apporterent ulterieurement Latreille lui-meme et d'autres, montrent, au demeurant, que les entomologistes franqais ne s'y sont pas laisses prendre.

5 1805 p. 379-380: " L'espece representee dans Schellenberg [1803] (tabl. 2, fig. II) [lire Tab. II, fig. 2B] pour la presente [subcoleoptrata, mais sub. nom. "subcoleoptera"] est plut6t la Thereve hemiptere de Fabricius " (ce que confirme le texte non cite de Schellenberg p. 48-49). 6 1809 p. 345: " Conops subcoleoptratus Linnaei congener, sed a T. subcoleoptrata Fabricii diversus videtur, ut indicant haec Linnaei verba: "abdomen ferrugineum apice nigro " (ce caractere linneen, non cite par Fabricius, a egalement retenu l'attention de Girschner 1887: 419; malgre cela, 1'identite des deux mouches est certaine car Ph. subcoleoptrata est le seul gros Allophorina existant en Suede centrale, terra typica de subcoleoptrata L.; All. hemiptera ne depasse pas la Scanie, cf. Ringdahl 1945). 7 Pour cette raison, il me parait vain de rechercher si Latreille a connu ou non des echantil- lons de subcoleoptrata. J'accorde a Sabrosky que Latreille aurait pu voir cette espfece dans la collection Bosc. J'accorde a Herting que Ph. subcoleoptrata (de meme que Ph. musciformis, s'il y a une difference specifique) est rarissime en Europe occidentale et moyenne; il existe cependant un record allemand plausible (Krober 1910: 74) et des captures certaines en Pologne (Draber Monko 1965:126) et en Belgique (Marechal 1931: 106, det. J. Villeneuve).

Original from and digitized by National University of Singapore Libraries Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 137

(b) L'etymologie de Phasia Latreille n'a jamais donne l'etymologie de Phasia. Personnellement, j'ai trouve dans la frappante beaute des males dcEctophasia (i.e. Phasia Latr. p.p.) que j'ai longue- ment observes sur le terrain (1963: 152), une explication possible de ce nom, ce qui m'a fait ecrire {op. cit. p. 3): "j'yvoisune allusion a I'apparence spectaculaire des males de sensu Phasia R.D. (= Ectophasia Town.) . ..". La limite de ma propre experience ne prejuge en rien de l'etendue de celle de Latreille, aussi me garderai-je bien d'admettre " that Latreille probably thought of the crassipennis complex " (Herting) a l'exclusion de toute autre Phasia. Au surplus, Latreille eut pu tres legitimement, pour le genre en sa totalite creer un nom d'apres une caracteristique qu'il n'aurait observee que chez une partie de ses representants. Cette pratique, parfaitement courante dans le bapteme des unites taxonomiques8, n'a en droit aucune incidence ni sur la validite des noms, ni sur la designation des types de genres. (c) Preuves zoologiques tirees de Latreille Latreille mentionne pour la premiere fois " Ph. crassipennis " en 1809, non seule- ment en indiquant sous ce nom la figure de Panzer 1800 (H. 74, pi. 15) deja citee par Fabricius 1805, mais encore en precisant que " figura domini Coquebert (Illust. Icon. ., dec. 3, tab. 23, fig. 11) varietatem exhibet". Coquebert (1804) representant en realite comme crassipennis une Ectophasia rubra, ceci prouve que Latreille savait reconnaitre nos actuelles Ectophasia et n'ignorait pas totalement E. rubra. Une confusion de sa part entre une Ectophasia et Phasia subcoleoptrata est done par suite fort improbable; elle est, en fait, totalement exclue, car la veritable confusion de Latreille—tardive d'ailleurs—est celle de Phasia subcoleoptrata avec Allophora hemiptera. Cette confusion peut etre soupgonnee a la lecture de Latreille 1817 qui, en regard de description convenables (d'apres les textes), donne la mention " originale " de sub¬ coleoptrata aux environs de Paris, sans citer hemiptera de France. Elle est confirmee par Le Peletier & Serville 1825 qui decrivent une All. hemiptera indubitable (" corselet noir, ses cotes et sa partie anterieure couverts de poils roux et dores ") sous le nom de Ph. subcoleoptrata. Ces auteurs, en effet, se prevalent de l'accord de Latreille et se referent aux fig. 14 et 15, pi. 394 des Planches d'lnsectes de l'Encyclopedie—publiees vers 1818 sous la responsabilite de Latreille—qui sont la copie des pi. 13 et 14, H. 74 de Panzer 1800. Tout ceci permet de penser que Latreille, vers 1817, avait adopte l'erreur de Panzer9 (hemiptera sous le nom de subcoleoptrata) et explique ses indications de localites. En d'autres termes, la seule interpretation de subcoleoptrata propre a Latreille dont on possede un indice est tardive et partielle (ce qui laisse intacte toute l'oeuvre plus ancienne) et ne correspond absolument pas a une Ectophasia, ce dont il convenait de s'assurer.

8 Par exemple, Phania Meigen 1824: 219 est, en tant que nom " von phanos, durchscheinend hergeleitet " (" transparent " selon Meigen, plutot que " brillant " selon Lucas 1847: 721); en tant que genre, Meigen l'utilise pour des mouches a abdomen transparent (obscuripennis, vittata) ou totalement noir (thoracica, curvicauda). 9 Mon explication (inedite) de l'erreur de Panzer est la suivante: cet auteur figure Ect. crassi¬ pennis (1800, H. 74, pi. 15), Ect. rubra et Allophora hemiptera, mais non Phasia subcoleoptrata qu'il ne connalt pas; etant donne que, sur la foi de Fabricius (1794: 284), il identifie k hemiptera (1798 H. 59, pi. 15; 1804 pi. 71, fig. 6 et p. 88) la figure innominee de rubra par Schaeffer et sa propre figure de rubra, il emploie fatalement, par elimination, le nom subcoleoptrata (1800, H. 74, pi. 13-14) pour Yhemiptera vraie. Ni Fabricius, qui ne mentionne Panzer que tardivement (1805), ni Latreille (1809, 1817), ni Fallen (1816, 1820) qui ne le citent que d'apres Fabricius ne se sont aperqus de cette erreur relevee pour la premibre fois par Zetterstedt (1844:1246). Le Peletier & Serville l'ont peut-etre, pressentie, mais ils ont prefere, reprenant la citation peut probante de Linne par Latreille (1809), admettre que Panzer et Fabricius avaient tous deux commis la meme erreur par rapport a Linne.

Original from and digitized by National University of Singapore Libraries 138 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

II—VALIDITE DE L'IDENTIFICATION DE FABRICIUS Herting admet que le materiel de Fabricius pour Th. subcoleoptrata appartient en realite a l'espece Ectophasia rubra (Girschner) Dupuis. La remarque de Meigen sur laquelle il fonde cette opinion ne doit evidemment pas eclipser l'oeuvre de Fabricius: il faut done examiner l'une et l'autre. A—VALEUR DE LA REMARQUE DE MEIGEN Meigen (1824: 186), a propos de Ph. crassipetmis, s'exprime textuellement comme suit: " Eine kleinere Abanderung hat einen braungelben Hinterleib ohne schwarze Strieme, und ganz braune Beine; alles Uebrige zeigt keine Verschiedenheit. Diesz ist Ther. subcoleoptrata in Fabricius Museum, nur dasz die Beine roth sind."10 Cette remarque merite certes un examen zoologique, mais encore convient-il de se soucier de sa portee juridique. 1—Valeur zoologique Vu le " braungelben Hinterleib ohne schwarze Strieme " de la variete de Meigen, on peut penser, avec Herting, que le materiel de Kiel qui lui est compare se rapporte a Ectophasia rubra (Girschner) Dupuis. II faut toutefois exprimer deux reserves: (a) Le materiel litigieux, dont Meigen ne donne aucune description propre, differe par ses " Beine roth " de la variete a " ganz braune Beine ", elle-meme decrite tres sommairement; la coloration des pattes, quoique fort variable, presente chez les Ectophasia certaines tendances specifiques encore a preciser, de sorte qu'il est difficile d'affirmer que la difference constatee soit simplement individuelle. (b) Vu l'absence de renseignements sur l'aile et l'imprecision meme de la formule " kleinere Abanderung ", on ignore quel type de male peut representer la variete de reference; on peut toutefois admettre que la mention, par Meigen, de divers males minores de rubra comme autant d'especes (brachyptera Pz., taeniata Pz., ancora Meg., diluta n. sp.) implique par elimination que les males cites sous crassipennis sont typiques. Ces reserves serviront a la Commission pour apprecier, si necessaire, la probability de la determination proposee, mais l'absence de portee juridique de la remarque de Meigen interdit de s'attarder sur ce point. 2—Valeur juridique Toute la question est de savoir si le materiel auquel Meigen fait allusion11 a la valeur d'un type de Fabricius. A ceci s'opposent les faits suivants: (a) le " relevant material " pour subcoleoptrata F. 1794, 1798 ne faisait pas partie de la collection de Fabricius, lequel 1'avait vu a Paris, dans la collection Bosc (cf. Sabrosky 1966); (b) Fallen, 1816, 1820, qui a redecrit subcoleoptrata d'apres du materiel suedois et 1'a fait connaltre a Meigen (cf. 1824: 191), admettait la subcoleoptrata de Fabricius (1794, 1798 et 1805) comme egale a la sienne; (c) Meigen n'a pas considere le materiel litigieux de Kiel comme un type, car malgre sa remarque de la p. 186, il admet parfaitement p. 190 les acceptions

10 On notera " kleinere Abanderung " (et non pas seulement " kleine ...") qui signifie variete plus petite, et " Diesz " (non " dies "), forme archalque d'un pronom neutre (sans rapport avec le feminin Abanderung), partie integrante de la formule indefinie " Diesz ist 11 Meigen n'a precise ni le nombre, ni l'origine de ce materiel. Sa presence—en 1823—et son absence de nos jours (cf. Herting 1965) dans la collection de Fabricius n'ont rien d'inex- plicable. On sait, par Wiedemann (18176: 62-63), premier conservateur de cette collection, que " es mag manchem Samler so gehen, wie es Fabricius selbst gegangen ist, dasz er zu seiner einmal genauer untersuchten und bestimmten Art in der Folge ahnliche in die Samlung hineinsteckt, welche sich bei genauerer Betrachtung doch noch hinlanglich verschieden linden, um entweder einer andern schon bestimmten Art beigesellet, oder auch als noch iibersehene neue Art aufgefiihrt zu werden Meigen, qui connaissait ces faits, s'est bien garde de considerer comme type un materiel en contradiction avec les textes; la disparition ulterieure de celui-ci peut s'expliquer par une " epuration " precisement consecutive a sa remarque.

Original from and digitized by National University of Singapore Libraries Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 139

de subcoleoptrata L. par Fabricius 1794, 1798, 1805 (cf. Sabrosky I.e.), Latreille 1809, 1810 et Fallen 1820. B—VALEUR DES TEXTES DE FABRICIUS

L'oeuvre de Fabricius quant aux Phasia (Syrphus p.p. 1794, Thereva 1798) est tout a fait remarquable par l'emploi d'elements de diagnose caracteristiques et par l'indica- tion des localites et collections de reference. (1) La creation de Syrphus hemipterus pour l'espece anglaise (caractere suffisant!) de Lewin a " thorax antice et sub alae pilis fulvis nitidis " (caractere suffisant!) est une correction deliberee et definitive de 1'identification anterieure, explicitement dubitative (1775, 1781, 1787), de ce meme materiel a subcoleoptrata L. (2) La creation simultanee d'un S. crassipennis de France, a " alae coriaceae, cinereae limbo punctoque medio fuscis " vaut assurement pour une Ectophasia, car ce genre, absent d'Angleterre et de Scandinavie, possede seul des males a taches noires poncti- formes sur l'aile. (3) La redefinition de S. subcoleoptratus, par son habitat en Suede et son " thorax totus niger substriatus ", est tout aussi heureuse, les Ectophasia a thorax pollineux n'atteignant pas la Scandinavie et hemiptera a pilosite thoracique rousse n'y existant, au plus, qu'en Scanie et en Finlande (cf. Ringdahl 1945). (4) La determination erronee, en 1794, de la figure innominee de Schaeffer (1767, pi. 71, fig. 6) comme S. hemipterus12, alors qu'il s'agit d'une Ectophasia rubra a thorax dore, ailes a points noirs nets et abdomen rouge, nous prouve que Fabricius ne con- naissait pas Ect. rubra. Elle nous prouve, en outre, etant contemporaine de la creation de crassipennis et de la restauration de l'acception lineenne de subcoleoptrata, (1°) que la crassipennis de Fabricius est une Ectophasia differente de rubra] (e'est done rostrata Egger = strigata Girschner13); (2°) que la subcoleoptrata de Fabricius 1794 est egalement differente de rubra, ce qu'il fallait demontrer. Ill—CONSfiQUENCES DES ACTIONS POSSIBLES L'avantage eventuel de la conservation de " Phasiinae " ne devant pas introduire le desordre aux echelons specifique, generique et tribal j'examine ci-dessous, aux niveaux taxonomiques successifs, les consequences formelles, zoologiques et d'usage du statu quo et de la proposition Herting. A—A L'fiCHELON SPECIFIQUE 1—Consequences formelles Le statu quo repose sur des binomes classiques et fort anciens. La proposition en litige presente, au contraire, l'inconvenient de faire appel a un trinome, " Phasia crassipennis rubra ", qui n'existe que dans Herting. Girschner n'a en effet introduit (1888!, non 1886, p. 231) ni uneespece, ni une sous-espece, mais seule- ment une " var. rubra " qu'il considere, au surplus, comme la " Normalform " [sic] du " Formenkreis " qu'il a imagine pour crassipennis. En outre, l'emploi des noms recents rostrata Egger et rubra Girschner pour les deux Ectophasia les plus repandues en Europe repond a un souci de clarte mais enfreint la priorite, ce que j'ai souligne expressement (1963: 110, n. 1). Designer rubra comme type de Phasia equivaudrait done a choisir sciemment une forme mal comprise par son auteur meme et synonyme de noms plus anciens qui restent a determiner.

12 Cette erreur, deji commise en 1787 (l'icone de Schaeffer est donnee sous S. subcoleoptratus sensu F. 1775, i.e. hemiptera F.) peut s'expliquer par l'abdomen parfois totalement roux de certains males d'hemiptera. Elle est a l'origine des confusions de Panzer (v. supra) qui, en 1798 (H. 59, p. 15) a represente rubra sous le noni d'hemiptera, en renvoyant a Schaeffer 1767 et Fabricius 1794 et qui, en 1804, a reedite la figure de Schaeffer avec cette meme determina¬ tion. Girschner semble le premier a avoir note que Panzer figurait une Ectophasia (1887: 385) et, plus precisement, E. rubra (cf. 1888: 232). 13 Ceci confirme, d'apres les textes, l'acception de crassipennis que Herting (op. cit.) etablit d'aprfes des " types " de Copenhague (douteux dans la mesure ou Fabricius 1794 indique pour origine de son materiel; " Mus, Dom Bosc ").

Original from and digitized by National University of Singapore Libraries 140 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

2—Consequences zoologiques Le statu quo n'implique aucune consequence zoologique particuliere a Fechelon specifique. L'adoption de rubra comme type de Phasia risque d'entrainer une confusion entre Phasia subcoleoptrata (L.) (mouche de Suede a thorax noir) et Ectophasia rubra (mouche a thorax pollineux absente de Scandinavie). 3—Consequences quant a Vusage En dehors de Herting, aucun auteur et, en particulier, aucun practicien n'ayant encore adopte ma distinction de rubra et de crassipennis (cf. Dupuis 1957, 1963), le choix de rubra comme type de Phasia ne reposerait sur aucune tradition d'usage courant. Une telle tradition serait plutot en faveur de " Phasia crassipennis " (cf. Apstein 1915). B—A L'fiCHELON G£N£RIQUE 1—Consequences formelles Le statu quo est, en tous points, conforme aux regies de nomenclature et, notam- ment, Phasia Latr. 1804 et Thereva F. 1798, l'un s'etant substitue a l'autre, ont le meme type (cf. CNZ 67i): Th. subcoleoptrata (F.), espece originellement incluse dans Fun et l'autre (cf. CNZ 67h). L'adoption, comme type de Phasia, de rubra qui ne figure a l'origine ni dans Thereva, ni dans Phasia, conduirait a enfreindre deux fois CNZ 67h. Une mesure limitee a Phasia seule serait contraire a CNZ 67i et laissserait Thereva F. 1798, avec son type subcoleoptrata, comme homonyme de Thereva Latr. 1796, sans autre nom de remplacement que des synonymes plus ou moins subjectifs. 2—Consequences zoologiques II est assez delicat, compte tenu des viscissitudes nomenclatoriales passees, de definir le statut generique actuel de nombreuses Phasia, Allophora, Phorantha, etc. . . anciennes du monde entier.

La restauration du statu quo, a laquelle j'ai procede en 1949, est un moindre mal. Au contraire, la suppression de l'acception originelle de Phasia Latr. {qu'il faudra remplacer par Phorantha, synonyme subjectif) et 1'introduction d'un Phasia s. nov. (qui ne supprimera pas Ectophasia, vu leurs types specifiquement differents) ne peuvent que conduire a une complication supplementaire. 3—Consequences quant a Vusage La restauration du statu quo est conforme a l'usage delibere, constamment affirme, de prendre pour type de Phasia Latr., soit Th. subcoleoptrata F. (Latreille 1810), soit Conops subcoleoptratus L. (Westwood 1840: 140), soit, lorsqu'il y a eu confusion, Allophora hemiptera (F.) (Curtis 1838 pi. 697, Coquillet 1910: 587, Townsend 1912: 45, 1938: 65, Malloch 1929: 108), mais jamais une Ectophasia! Elle n'est pas aussi meconnue de nos jours que l'affirme Herting. En dehors de mes publications depuis 1949 et des travaux americains que cite Sabrosky (1966), on trouve des usages corrects ou des mentions des genres Phasia s. Latr. ou Ectophasia dans Malloch 1929, Villeneuve 1933, Shumakov 1958, Viktorov 1960, 1962a, b, 1964, 1965, Viktorov & Kozharina 1961, Coe 1962, Verbeke 1962 et peut-etre d'autres encore.

La proposition Herting tend simplement a officialiser Yusage routinier de Phasia sensu Robineau-Desvoidy 1830, largement repandu, a une epoque oil l'on n'observait guere de regies nomenclatoriales, par Macquart, Meigen (1838: 283), Schiner, etc.. . et surtout par le Catalogue de Bezzi (1907) dont les insuffisances sont bien connues (cf. Herting 1960: 6). C—AUX ECHELONS SUPERGENER1QLES 1—Consequences nomenclatoriales L'acceptation du statu quo, i.e. de subcoleoptrata, comme type de Phasia Latr. entraine, evidemment, l'emploi cYEctophasiini et Ectophasiinae et le rejet de Phasiini et Phasiinae, car Phasianeae Robineau-Desvoidy 1830 est fonde sur Phasia R.D. = Ectophasia Town, et non pas sur Phasia Latr.

Original from and digitized by National University of Singapore Libraries Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 141

La proposition de Herting tend avant tout a la conservation de Phasiinae. En admettant qu'aucun autre nom n'ait la priorite14, on peut se demander s'il est vraiment necessaire de changer pour cela le type de Phasia et s'il n'eut pas mieux valu invoquer CNZ 39a II15. 2—Consequences zoologiques Phasia Latr. et Ectophasia Town, appartiennent (contra Sabrosky!) au moins a des sous-tribus differentes, respectivement celles des Allophorina et Ectophasiina, bien distinctes par tous leurs caracteres (nervation, genitalia males et femelles, oeufs, mode de ponte, larves aux trois stades) (cf. Dupuis 1963: 77-86 et contributions anterieures). II est done zoologiquement important de ne pas creer a la legere une sous-tribu Phasiina161lont on ne saurait pas si elle correspond aux Allophorina ou aux Ectophasiina. Phasia Latr. s. str. n'ayant encore jamais servi de type a un taxon supergenerique17, la reconnaissance de son acception originale ecarte cette possibility. L'adoption de rubra comme type de Phasia entrainerait par contre l'emploi du nom ambigu Phasiina pour Ectophasiina. 3—Consequences du point de vue de Pusage " Phasiinae " est indubitablement tres employe (y compris sous forme vernaculaire), mais avec des acceptions extremement diverses et un contenu etonnamment fluctuant. L'usage qu'on en fait est moins celui d'un taxon defini que d'une etiquette commode. L'emploi d'Ectophasiinae comme consequence de statu quo des types de genres, du fait meme qu'il se trouverait chez les auteurs a venir, aurait quelque chance de corres- pondre a une entite taxonomique plus epuree que naguere Phasiinae, tandis que l'adoption de la proposition Herting ne remedierait en rien a la situation actuelle. RfiSUMfi, CONCLUSIONS ET CONTRE-PROPOSITIONS Compte tenu des precisions ci-dessus, on peut admettre que Latreille a trop utilise les textes pour avoir une connaissance personnelle de Phasia subcoleoptrata et que le materiel vu sous ce nom dans la collection Fabricius par Meigen peut se rapporter a Ectophasia rubra. Ces constatations zoologiques qui sont, a quelques nuances pres, celles de Herting, n'entrainent cependant aucune des conclusions nomenclatoriales qu'en a tirees notre collegue. Les actions taxonomiques de Latreille, uniquement fondees sur les textes de Fabricius sont valides, independamment de toute consultation de materiel. Au demeurant, lorsque Latreille a confondu Ph. subcoleoptrata avec une autre espece, e'est—en 1817—avec Allophora hemiptera et non pas avec E. rubra. En ce qui concerne Fabricius, tout indique, et Meigen en avait juge ainsi, que le materiel litigieux n'est pas le type de sa subcoleoptrata. Au surplus, les textes parfaite- ment clairs de Fabricius montrent qu'il n'a pu confondre E. rubra qu'avec Allophora hemiptera p.p. Seules d'imperieuses considerations d'usage pourraient done, le cas echeant, conduire a remettre en question, quant au type de Phasia, ce que les travaux de Fabri-

14 Je pense a Cylindromyiinae, car Ocypteratae Robineau-Desvoidy in Blainville 1826 (fonde sur Ocyptera R.D. non Latr. 1804 = Cylindromyia Meig. 1803) a priorite de ligne sur Phasianeae R.D. in Blainville 1826. II est possible, en effet, que ce nom doive etre considere comme publie au sens du CNZ, car le rapport imprime de Blainville a ete analyse dans le Bull, des Sc. nat. et de Geol. de Ferussac (t. 10, 1827, pp. 316-318), etait connu de Latreille 1829 et existe dans les bibliothfeques. 15 Ectophasia etant le synonyme recent valide de Phasia R.D. et ce dernier un homonyme recent de Phasia Latr., ni CNZ 40, ni CNZ 39a I n'autorisent comme je l'ai cru (1963: 33) la conservation de Phasiinae. 16 Pour cette raison, toute mesure conservatoire (que je ne demande pas) qui pourrait etre prise, independamment de la proposition Herting, en faveur de Phasiinae ne devrait concerner que le nom de sous-famille, a l'exclusion des noms de tribus (ce que je demanderais si neces¬ saire). 17 Phasiina Townsend 1912: 45 est fonde sur Phasia sensu Curtis 1838, Coquillett 1910, i.e. Allophora R.D.

Original from and digitized by National University of Singapore Libraries 142 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature cius et de Latreille presentent chacun de magistralement conforme aux exigences nomenclatoriales modernes. Un examen des consequences d'une designation de rubra comme type de Phasia laisse augurer d'inconvenients nomenclatoriaux, taxonomiques et d'usage, aux divers echelons taxonomiques infra-subfamiliaux et du seul avantage—peut-etre provisoire— d'une conservation du nom de sous-famille Phasiinae. Ce n'est pas la un imperatif suffisant pour bouleverser ce qui existe sur une base formellement et zoologiquement incontestable. En consequence, je presente les contre-propositions suivantes: Afin d'eviter toute confusion et de preserver la stabilite de la nomenclature, la Commission internationale de Nomenclature Zoologique usera de ses pouvoirs normaux pour placer: (1) dans la Liste officielle des noms de genres acceptes en Zoologie, les deux noms de genres: —Phasia Latreille 18046 (genre feminin), espece type: Thereva subcoleoptrata (F. 1798) designee valablement par Latreille 1810; —Ectophasia Townsend 1912 (genre feminin), espece type: Syrphus crassi- pennis F. 1794 designee valablement par Townsend 1912; (2) dans la Liste officielle des noms d'especes acceptes en Zoologie les deux noms d'especes: subcoleoptrata L. 1767 tel qu'il figure valablement dans Thereva subcoleop¬ trata (F. 1798) (espece type de Phasia Latreille 1804); —crassipennis F. 1794 tel qu'il figure valablement dans Syrphus crassipennis F. 1794 (espece type d'Ectophasia Townsend 1912).

REFERENCES ABREGEES AUX TRAVAUX CITES

Apstein, C. 1915. Nomina conservanda. Sitz. -Ber. Ges. Naturf. Freunde Berlin, p. 166 Bezzi, M. 1907. in Katalog der palaarktischen Dipteren, Bd. 3, pp. 189-597 Coe, R. L. 1962. Bull. Mus. Hist. Nat. Belgrade, Sc. biol., 18, p. 130 Coquebert, A. J. 1804 (An XII). Ulustratio iconographica insectorum Tabu- larum decas tertia, pi. XXIII, fig. 11 et p. 103 Coquillett, D. W. 1910. The type species of the North American genera of Diptera. Proc. U.S. nat. Mus., 37, p. 587 Curtis, J. 1838. British entomology, pi. 697 Draber-Monko, A. 1965. Monographie der palaarktischen Arten der Gattung Alophora R. D. Ann. Zool., Warszawa, 23, pp. 69-194 Dumeril, A. M. C. 1829. Article " Thereve " in Dictionnaire des Sc. nat., t. 54, pp. 257-259 Dupuis, C. 1949. Bull. Mus. nat. Hist, nat., 2e s., 21, pp. 243-247 1957. C. R. Acad. Sc., 245, pp. 1579-1580 1963. Essai monographique sur les Phasiinae. Mem. Mus. nat. Hist, nat., n.s., A. Zool., 26, pp. 1-461 Fabricius, J. C. 1775. Systema entomologiae, p. 764 1781. Species insectorum, t. II, p. 423 1787. Mantissa insectorum, p. 335 1794. Entomologia systematica, t. 4, pp. 283-284 1798. Entomologia systematica, Suppl., pp. 560-561 1805. Systema antliatorum, pp. 217-218 Fallen, C. F. 1816. K. Vet. Akad. Handl., Stockholm (1815), pp. 229-240 1820. Diptera Sueciae, vol. II, Fam. 13: Rhizomyzides, p. 2 Girschner, E. 1887. Die europaischen Arten der Dipterengattung Alophora. Zeitschr. f. Naturwiss., 60, pp. 375-426 — 1888. Ueber die Artgrenze der Phasia crassipennis. Entom. Nachrichten, 14, pp. 225-234

Original from and digitized by National University of Singapore Libraries Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 143

Herting, B. 1960. Biologic der westpalaarktischen Raupenfliegcn, Dipt. Tachinidae. Monogr. z. angew. Ent., 16, pp. 1-188 1965. Bull. zool. Nomencl., 22, pp. 243-245 Krober, O. 1910. Verhandl. Ver. naturw. Unterh. Hamburg, 14 (1907-1909), p. 74 Latreille, P. A. 1796 (An V). Precis des caracteres generiques des Insectes, p. 167 1802 (An X). Histoire naturelle generale et particuliere des Crustac'es et des Insectes, t. 3, pp. 440, 456 1803 (An XI). Article " Mouche " in Nouv. Diet. d'Hist. Nat. appl. aux Arts, t. 15, p. 122 1804a (An XII). Article " Thereve " in Ibid., t. 22, p. 137 18046 (An XII). Tableau methodique des Insectes in Ibid., t. 24, p. 195 1805 (An XIII). Histoire Naturelle generate et particuliere des Crustaces et des Insectes, t. 14, pp. 379-380 1809. Genera Crustaceorum et Insectorum t. 4, pp. 296 (Thereva), 344-345 (Phasia) 1810. Table des genres avec l'indication de l'espece qui leur sert de type in Considerations generates sur l'ordre naturel des animaux composant les classes des Crustaces, des Arachnides et des Insectes, p. 444 • 1817. Article " Phasie " in Nouv. Diet. d'Hist. Nat. appl. aux Arts, Nelle edit., t. 25, pp. 504-506 1829. Les Crustaces, les Arachnides et les Insectes distribues en families naturelles, t. 2, p. 508 Le Peletier, A. & Serville, A. 1825. Article "Phasie" in Encycl. methodique, Insectes, t. 10, pt 1, pp. 97-98, pi. 394, fig. 14-15 Lucas, H. 1847. Article " Phania " in [d'Orbigny] Dictionnaire universel d'Hist. Nat., t. 9, pp. 721-722 Malloch, J. R. 1929. Proc. linn. Soc. New South Wales, 54, p. 108 Marechal, P. 1931. Lambillionea, 31, p. 106 Meigen, J. W. 1803. [Uliger's] Mag.f. Insekt.-Kunde, 2, pp. 279-280 1820. Systematische Beschreibung der bekannten europaischen zweifltigeligen Insekten. 2. Theil, p. 115 1824. Ibid. 4. Theil, pp. 185-186, 190-191, 218 1838. Ibid. 7. Theil, p. 283 Panzer, G. W. F. 1798. Faunae insectorum germanicae, H. 59, pi. 15 (" Thereva hemiptera "), pi. 20 (" Musca nebulosa ") ■ 1800. Ibid. H. 74, pi. 13-14 (" Thereva subcoleoptrata "), pi. 15 (" Thereva crassipennis ")

1804. D. J. C. Schaefferi Icones Insectorum Ratisbonensium . .. illustratae

et indice systematico auctae ... Editio nova t. 4, pi. 71, fig. 6 et p. 88 Ringdahl, O. 1945. Ent. Tidskr., 66, p. 195 Robineau-Desvoidy, J. B. 1826. in de Blainville, H. M., Rapport sur les Myodaires du Dr Robineau-Desvoidy, lu dans la seance de l'Academie des Sciences, le 2 octobre 1826 ... 8°, Paris 1826, pp. 1-24 1830. Essai sur les Myodaires, p. 289 Sabrosky, C. W. 1966. Bull. zool. Nomencl., 23, p. 9-11 Schaeffer, J. C. 1767. Icones insectorum circa ratisbonam indigenorum, vol. 1, pi. 71, fig. 6 (pour la 2e edit., cf. Panzer 1804) Schellenberg, J. R. 1803. Genres des mouches Dipteres (Gattungen der Fliegen) Zurich, tabl. II fig. 2 et pp. 48-49 Shumakov, E. M. 1958. Trudy vsiess. Inst. Zashtsh. Rast., pp. 312-321 Townsend, C. H. T. 1912. Proc. ent. Soc. Wash., 14, p. 45 1938. Manual of Myiology, pt. 7, p. 65 Verbeke, J. 1962. Explor. hydrobiol. lacs Kivu. Edouard et Albert, Res. sc. 3 (4), pp. 79-187 Viktorov, G. A. 1960. Vriednaia Tscherepashka, t. 4, pp. 231-sq 1962a. Zool. Zhurnal, 41, p. 72 ■ 19626. XII. int. Congr. Ent., Wien, Verhandl., 2, pp. 721-sq

Original from and digitized by National University of Singapore Libraries 144 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Viktorov, G. A. 1964. Dokl. Ak. Nauk SSSR, 159, pp. 230-232 1965. XUIth int. Congr. Ent., London, Proc., p. 374 Viktorov, G. A. & Kozharina, N. Ph. 1961. Zool. Zhurnal, 40, pp. 52-59 Villeneuve, J. 1933. Bull. & Ann. Soc. ent. Belg., 73, pp. 195-199 Westwood, J. O. 1840. Synopsis of the genera of British , p. 140 Wiedemann, C. R. W. 1817a. [Wiedemann's] Zool. Magazin, Bd I, St. 1, p. 6 18176. Ibid, Bd. I, St. 1, pp. 62-63 1818. Ibid, Bd. I, St. 2, p. 45 1830. Auszereuropaische zweifliigelige Insekten, 2. Theil, p. 262, n. 1 Zetterstedt, J. W. 1844. Diptera Scandinaviae, t. 3, p. 1246

Original from and digitized by National University of Singapore Libraries Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 145

ALTERNATIVE TO THE REQUEST FOR A DECLARATION AGAINST THE SUPPRESSION OF NOMINA DUBIA Z.N.(S.) 1715 (see volume 22, pages 265-266) By Hobart M. Smith (Department ofZoology and Museum ofNatural History, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois, U.S.A.)

The proposal that a Declaration be promulgated establishing an official policy against suppression of nomina dubia would, if adopted, be more detrimental than helpful to progress in . Therefore I strongly urge that the proposal be denied. 2. It is true that any given nomen dubium may never become a nomen clarum: that if it does it may not be a threat to another, well-established name; and that it might belong to some species otherwise unnamed, whereupon its earlier suppression would require otherwise unnecessary duplication of name. However, the proposal already embodies the point that rarely do these events transpire. 3. On the contrary, it is commonplace for nomina dubia to act as vexatious thorns obstructing taxonomic progress. As long as they exist, they fester. Untold hours of effort that could far better be directed into more constructive channels are lost in the rarely successful attempt to convert a placeless nomen dubium into a nomen clarum. There comes a point of diminishing return where it would be a travesty to the intent and purpose of the Code for the Commission to refuse to call a halt to the otherwise endless search. Is this not the " confusion " which the Commission is dedicated to reduce? Is it not a contribution to stability to remove uncertainty? 4. Surely refusal by the London Congress then (1958) to take a stand does not imply or warrant the inference that no stand should be taken at a later time. The only justified inference, lacking a statement to the contrary, is that a stand would not, or could not, be taken at the time. This could mean no more than absence at that time of sufficient unanimity of opinion to justify a stand. 5. Certainly suppression of a name for purposes of the Law of Priority but not of Homonymy would still leave the name to be reckoned with in synonymies; there is in fact no possible way to strike a name from catalogs and indices, once published therein, and once entered they have to be cited at least to the extent of sourcing the elimination. Better to cite one opinion eliminating a name than any number of essays trying to pin it down! 6. If the policy of facilitation of retirement of nomina dubia by suppression upon request is sound, as I urge it is, then it may be construed equally sound to permit retirement of them, again upon request, by designation of neotypes. Inasmuch as each case must be considered separately, adequate opportunity exists for the requisite censorship of the propriety of the proposed procedure in any given case, by either the route of suppression or the route of erection of a neotype. The cases are not likely to be overwhelming in number, but if they become burdensome the docket can be relieved by any of several devices utilized in civil courts. Burdensome or not, the service rendered is one of the most useful contributions the Commission can make toward attainment of the goals stated in the Preamble to its own Code. The sacrifice of time and effort thus required pays limitless dividends in savings of time and effort by untold numbers of taxonomists now and in perpetuity. 7. Retirement of nomina dubia through transformation to nomina clara might be effected—if authorized by the Code—by approval of arbitrary allocation. However, the problems created exceed the problems solved because of the frequent difficulty of determining incontrovertibly the earliest " valid "" subsequent clarification " and of making clear that this particular allocation must take precedence over all others in the eyes of all workers. It is therefore here strongly recommended that the Code make explicitly clear that (A) automatic retirement (i.e. without individual consideration by the Commission) of nomina dubia can be effected only by (1) discovery of criteria that render them nomina clara, and by (2) erection of neotypes: and that (B) retirement by (1) suppression or (2) " subsequent clarification " must be authorized by individual consideration by the Commission. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 23, Part 4. October 1966.

Original from and digitized by National University of Singapore Libraries 146 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

COMMENT ON THE REQUEST FOR ACTION ON THE NAME VOLUTA MITRA LINNAEUS, 1758 (GASTROPODA). Z.N.(S.) 1728 (see volume 22, pages 355-356)

By Harald A. Rehder (Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.)

I have read the proposal of Dr. Eugene Coan with interest since I am at the moment critically studying the marine of , of which the species under discussion forms a conspicuous element. At the outset I must point out that alternative (B), as outlined by Coan, cannot be entertained by the Commission since Valuta mitra Linnaeus is, in my opinion, not a nomen dubium, since it covers both varieties—episcopalis and papalis, and must be restricted to one or the other of these varieties as a synonym. It is my conviction that we should follow Linnaeus' later judgement, as expressed in the Museum Ludovicae Ulricae, 1764, and the twelfth edition of the Systerna Naturae, 1767, and consider Voluta mitra a distinct species, and the trivial names episcopalis and papalis as denoting varieties, the former being the nominal form. I agree with Dodge (1955, Bull. Amer. Mus. nat. Hist. 107 : 121-123) in this particular. Coan's statement that most authors have abandoned the use of Voluta mitra is correct as far as concerns works published in the last century and in the early part of the twentieth century. But it is not true if one considers recent workers. I have gone through rather carefully publications that have appeared in the last twenty-five years, and have found only one in which Mitra-episcopalis is used; this is the Handbuch der Paleozoologie, Band 6: Gastropoda, Teil 6, 1943 by Wenz, who apparently followed Thiele (1931, Handbuch Syst. Weichtierk. 1 : 340). All the other works consulted, twelve in all, published in the years 1941-65, use Mitra mitra. And these include many widely used handbooks and manuals. It is apparent, therefore, that the combination Mitra mitra (Linnaeus) has come into general use by most professional and amateur malacologists in the last decades, and to return to Mitra episcopalis (Linnaeus) would create more confusion than stability. I, therefore, request that the International Commission take the following action: (1) Suppress the varietal name episcopalis Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Voluta mitra episcopalis for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy. (2) Place the specific name mitra Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Voluta mitra, and papalis Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Voluta mitra papalis, on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. (3) Place the specific name episcopalis Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combina¬ tion Voluta mitra episcopalis on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. By Myra Keen (Stanford University, Stanford, California, U.S.A.)

It is my conviction that the request by Eugene Coan is in the interests of stability in that the usage of the combination Mitra episcopalis was consistent until very recent years, and the adoption of Mitra mitra by later authors has been by no means unani¬ mous.

COMMENT ON PROPOSAL TO SUPPRESS FOUR RICHARDSON FISH NAMES. Z,N.(S.) 1740 By W. L. Chan (Fisheries Research Station, Hong Kong) (see present volume, pages 62-64) I support in principle the application made by Whitehead (1966, Bull. zool. Nomencl., 23 (1) :62-64)to suppress four fish names proposed by Richardson (1846, Rept. Fish. Seas China Japan). In addition, application is made here to suppress for the same reasons a fifth Richardson fish name, Clupea flosmaris. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 23, Part 4. October 1966.

Original from and digitized by National University of Singapore Libraries Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 147

2. While agreeing with Whitehead that the four names should be suppressed, I would like to add some comments on the identity of the three clupeid species involved, based on a knowledge of Chinese vernacular names used in Hong Kong waters. The Chinese names are written below each of the Reeves illustrations of the three clupeid fishes and are recorded by Richardson (loc. cit.). These names are still used by Hong Kong fishermen, but not for the species indicated by Whitehead (1966, Bull. Brit. Mus. nat. Hist. Zool., 14(2) : 15-54). But, although my identifications differ from those of Whitehead, each Richardson name still pre-dates a name which is commonly used in the literature; I therefore agree with Whitehead that the Richardson names should be suppressed.

3. The identity of the Richardson species can be commented on briefly. (i) Clupea isingleena Richardson, 1846. Whitehead (loc. cit.) identified the holotype as Sardinella fimbriata (Valenciennes, 1847). I have shown elsewhere (Chan, 1965. Jap. J. Ichthyol., 13 : 1—39 and figs. 7a, 8a and b) that the scales of the holotype differ from those of S. fimbriata; they more nearly resemble those of Sardinella brachysoma Bleeker, 1852. Moreover, the Reeves drawing (No. 60), which Richardson identified with his C. isingleena, bears a Chinese ideogram which can be rendered as Tsing-lun, i.e. green scale, a name which is nowadays applied to specimens of S. brachysoma in Hong Kong waters. The Reeves illustration itself bears a very close likeness to the " hypselosoma " form of Sardinella brachysoma. However, Bleeker's name brachysoma is as firmly entrenched in the literature as Valenciennes' name fimbriata, whereas Richardson's name isingleena is a nomen oblitum. In the interests of stability, Richard¬ son's name should be suppressed, whatever the true identity of the species.

(ii) Clupea nymphaea Richardson, 1846. Identified by Whitehead as Sardinella aurita Valenciennes, 1846, on the basis of Richardson's description and the Reeves' illustration (No. A 25), the type now being lost. The fish is entitled Cheung-yiu Lun, i.e. long-waisted scale, both in the illustration and in the text by Richardson. This name is nowadays applied to specimens of Sardinella jussieu (Lacepede, 1803), i.e. S. gibbosa (Bleeker, 1849) of some authors. Richardson (loc. cit.) gives a pelvic fin ray count of 9 for Clupea nymphaea, which is characteristic of S. aurita (8 only in S. jussieu). Thus, there is no certainty that the Reeves illustration refers to the same species as the Richardson text. Once again, I support Whitehead's application to suppress the Richardson name, which has been constantly misapplied in the literature.

(iii) Clupea caeruleovittata Richardson, 1846. There is no type specimen, only a Reeves illustration (No. 59), which Whitehead (loc. cit.) identified as probably Sardi¬ nella leiogaster Valenciennes, 1847. The Reeves illustration is labelled Wong-tsark, i.e. golden hue, a name which is nowadays definitely applied to Sardinella aurita Valenciennes, 1847. The figure is not inconsistent with that species. Richardson's name, which is in any case a nomen oblitum, should be suppressed, whatever the true identity of the species, since the names aurita and leiogaster are both widely used in the literature.

(iv) Anguilla clathrata Richardson, 1846. I support Whitehead's application for the suppression of this nomen oblitum, which is otherwise a senior synonym of the well-known Japanese freshwater eel, Anguilla japonica Temminck & Schlegel, 1846.

4. Clupea flosmaris Richardson, 1846 was based solely on a Reeves illustration (No. 64), labelled with the Chinese name Hoi-hor, i.e. sea lily. This species was identi¬ fied by Whitehead (loc. cit.) as possibly a member of either Herklotsichthys or Sardi¬ nella. But this Chinese name nowadays definitely refers to the round herring Dus- sumieria acuta Valenciennes, 1847 and the illustration is consistent with a small specimen of this species. Richardson's name is a nomen oblitum and should be suppressed.

5. (i) Application is made to the International Commission for Zoological Nomen¬ clature to use its plenary powers to suppress the following name for the purposes of the

Original from and digitized by National University of Singapore Libraries 148 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy: Clupea flos-maris Richardson, 1847.

(ii) The Commission is requested to place the following name on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology: flos-maris Richardson, 1846, as published in the binomen Clupea flos-maris.

(iii) The Commission is requested to place the following name on the Official List of Specific names in Zoology: acuta Valenciennes, 1847, as published in the binomen Dussumieria acuta.

Original from and digitized by National University of Singapore Libraries Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 149

COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED SUPPRESSION OF THREE NOMINA OBLITA IN THE FAMILY BELONIDAE (PISCES). Z.N.(S.) 1723 (see volume 22, pages 325-329)

By G. F. Mees (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands)

In my revisions of the family Belonidae (Mees 1962,1964), it was demonstrated that several species of this group are far wider ranging than was previously known. One of the results of this was a great simplification in nomenclature: species which previously, in different parts of their range, had been known by different specific names, and some¬ times even as different genera, retained one name throughout their ranges. In actual figures, the family Belonidae was reduced from a lowest estimate of some sixty species (for which twenty generic names were available) to twenty-four species, divided over two genera. Over thirty specific names were placed in synonymy for the first time. With such a drastic reduction of species, inevitably many changes in nomenclature were necessary. Sometimes a single species had been known by five and more names in different parts of its range, each name being well-established and " in general use " in a certain region. Basing myself on the principles of priority and clarity of description (some names date from 150 and more years ago, a time when few species of Belonidae were known and the importance of certain characters was not yet realized), I have used the names that on this basis appeared to be the best ones. As each of these old names has a different history, I had to make a separate decision for each name and species, and though I have tried to be consistent, subjectivity could not altogether be avoided: a name rejected by another worker as unidentifiable might be acceptable to me, or vice versa, but I have in each instance clearly stated my reasons for accepting one name and rejecting as unidentifiable another. Collette & Berry (1965, 1966) disagree with many of my decisions, and have proposed suppression of three specific names I have used. Their proposals are largely based on Art. 23b of the Code, which at present it is proposed to suspend, as it was found to be unworkable (cf. Smith, 1964; Robins, 1965). I shall discuss these names, and two others which have been accepted by Collette & Berry, though they had been rejected by me. As Collette & Berry have presented very ably one side of the picture, I shall try to present the other point of view, so that the Commission can consider both, and make its decisions accordingly. Esox imperialis Rafinesque, 1810 This name was accepted by me as Belone imperialis (Rafinesque), as it was based on a Belone species in the Mediterranean which was described as much larger and rarer than the common Belone bellone. There are some discrepancies in the description (the number of finrays in D and A as given is too high), but as only two species of Belone were known from the Mediterranean, and the species under discussion reaches a length of over 1-50 m, it appeared recognizable*. Collette & Berry have since mentioned the occurrence of Belone marisrubri in the Mediterranean, which would invalidate one of my arguments. Unfortunately they do not give any particulars about this interesting record. Belone marisrubri was not recorded for the Mediterranean by Tortonese (1964), and as the species is very common in the Red Sea one might assume that it has recently reached the Mediterranean through

* Collette & Berry (1966: 327) came with the amazing statement that: "... a large propor¬ tion of the museum specimens of Belone belone [recte: Belone bellone] and Tylosurus acus that we have examined have been misidentified, so we see no reason to assume that Rafinesque necessarily distinguished between them ". Rafinesque (1810), as well as Mongitore (1743), and Cirino (1653), to whom Rafinesque referred, made quite clear that they knew the ordinary Belone bellone, and distinguished a second much larger species from it. Full quotations of the relevant passages in these somewhat scarce publications can be found in my revisions (Mees, 1962: 40-41, 1964: 319-320). One wonders if Collette & Berry found so many specimens in collections apparently misidentified because they did not realize that many specimens of Belone bellone in collections are labelled as Belone acus Risso, not acus (La Cep6de). Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 23, Part 4. October 1966.

Original from and digitized by National University of Singapore Libraries 150 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature the Suez Canal. The name Belone imperialis dates from many years before the Suez Canal was opened. A point in favour of B. imperialis is also that it is this species which amongst Italian fishers is known as Aguglia Imperial, the common name also mention¬ ed by Rafinesque and in older literature. The official Spanish name is Aguja imperial (Rey, 1947: 603). Collette & Berry (1966: 327) have proposed rejection of the specific name imperialis not on the basis of inapplicability, but as: " The name imperialis has apparently not been used as a senior synonym since its original description, except by Mees (1962, 1964) and Tortonese (1963) As Collette & Berry refer to Tortonese (1963), it is difficult to understand how they arrived at their opinion, for in the paper mentioned reference is made to the following publications in which the name imperialis (Rafinesque) is used as the name of the species under discussion: Moreau, 1881; Vinciguerra, 1885; Carus, 1893; D'Ancona, 1931; Tortonese & Trotti, 1949; Lanfranco, 1958. To show that there was not a gap in its use between 1810 and 1881, I further mention Bonaparte (1849). Several of these publications refer to more literature in which the names Belone imperialis (Rafinesque) or Tylosurus imperialis (Rafinesque) have been used, and far from being a nomen oblitum (Collette & Berry, 1965: 391) it appears that the specific name imperialis has been in almost continuous use for a century and a half, and is the name that has been the most widely used for the species under discussion in publications dealing with the fish fauna of the Mediterranean. It has also been used for the species in West-Africa (Cadenat & Marchal, 1963: 1303). A further strong point in its favour is that, to the best of my knowledge, it has never been misapplied.

Sphyraena acits La Cepede, 1803 Collette & Berry have advocated the use of Sphyraena acus La Cepede, 1803, for the species called Belone imperialis by me. My reasons for rejecting the name have been given in full (Mees, 1962: 69-70). When La Cepede proposed the name, based on one of Plumier's drawings, he believed it to be a Sphyraena. The name was assigned to the proper genus by Valenciennes (in Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1846: 319), who noted that the species was: " tout-a-fait impossible a determiner ". At this the matter was left until 1887 when Jordan & Fordice considered it " probable " that Sphyraena acus was applicable to this species. That they were still uncertain about the species involved is apparent from the fact that they distinguished it from " Tylosurus caribbaeus " which is the same species. In North American literature, Jordan & Fordice have been followed widely, the words " probable " and " without much doubt " which accompany their opinion being deleted by later workers. Collette & Berry have proposed placing the name Sphyraena acus on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology, though admitting that it is " poorly described Doubtless they suppose that this will best serve stability. However, as I have already demonstrated in the discussion of Esox imperialis, they are not sufficiently familiar with the European literature, for in Europe is a Belone acus Risso, 1826, which, though a synonym of Belone bellone, has been used very extensively in European literature (perhaps sometimes to avoid tautonymy). Thus there was a Belone acus in literature twenty years before Valenciennes placed Sphyraena acus La Cepede in the genus Belone. Superfluous to say that Belone acus Risso and Belone acus (La Cepede) are different species, and that introduction of the name acus (La Cepede) into European literature will lead to considerable confusion, and has done so already (Albuquerque, 1954: 439). There are literally hundreds of references to Belone acus Risso in literature, in popular and semi-popular literature, and also in scientific literature at least up to 1955 (Svetovidov, 1955). Even subsequent to Jordan & Fordice (1887) the name acus (La Cepede) has been interpreted differently, for example by Metzelaar (1919), and moreover the name caribbaea (lapsus for carribaea Lesueur) continued to be used. Esox belone Var. Maris rubri Bloch & Schneider, 1801 There is no doubt about the identity of the name marisrubri, which was based on a description by Forskal, but Collette & Berry have asked for its suppression in order to

Original from and digitized by National University of Singapore Libraries Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 151

save Belona crocodila Lesueur, 1821, which is a synonym twenty years its junior. The species listed as Belone marisrubri in my revisions is of circumtropical distribu¬ tion, a fact that had not previously been recognized. Names in general use for it were: crocodila Lesueur, 1821 (Indo-Pacific), choram Riippell, 1837 (Red Sea and Indian ), raphidoma Ranzani, 1842 (Atlantic and West Indies), annulata Valenciennes, 1846 (Indo-Pacific), gigantea Temminck & Schlegel, 1846 (Indo-Pacific), robusta Gunther, 1866 (Red Sea, east coast of Africa), fodiator Jordan & Gilbert, 1882 (East Pacific). Less often the names coromandelica van Hasselt, 1823, timucoides van Hasselt, 1824, and several others are found in literature. Here is an instance where over a large part of its range the name of the species had to be changed anyway, and where I have used an almost forgotten name (.marisrubri), on the grounds of clear priority over any of the many names in current use. Collette & Berry have proposed suppression of the name marisrubri, in order to save for use, from the array of available names, the next one in seniority, Belona crocodila Lesueur, which they correctly claim has been widely used in literature. They specifically mention its use by Weber & de Beaufort (1922) and in other well-known handbooks. The situation is however far more complicated than as presented by them. Collette & Berry's proposal could easily give the impression that crocodila was the most used name for the species in the Indo-Pacific, but in fact the two names most generally used in this area are annulata Valenciennes, 1846, and gigantea Temminck & Schlegel, 1846. Weber & de Beaufort (1922) for example stated quite clearly that they had not personally examined specimens they could ascribe to crocodila and that their description was entirely compiled from literature. The same pertains to several other works: crocodila was but compiled from literature, and for actual material the names gigantea and annulata were used, disagreement existing as to which of these two names, both published in 1846, had priority. In more recent years Fowler (1922) has also revived the name Belona indica Lesueur, 1821, for this same species, in which he has found some following (Munro, 1958). The name indica is in my opinion indetermin¬ able, but it was proposed in the same paper as Belona crocodila and adds to the general confusion. Where such confusion exists, I certainly believe that it is preferable by far to follow the law of priority and use the name Belone marisrubri Bloch & Schneider, rather than arbitrarily select Belone crocodila, a name that in recent literature has almost universally been misunderstood. The facts that the identity of B. marisrubri is certain, and that it has twenty years priority over the next available name, which gives it a greater chance of survival in case other old names are found in future, add to the arguments in its favour. Since the publication of my revision, the name marisrubri has been used by Wood¬ land & Slack-Smith (1963) and Whitley (1964). Belona argalus Lesueur, 1821 This is also a name which I have discussed and rejected (Mees, 1962: 70-71). There is very little I can add to my earlier notes. Collette & Berry (1965: 391) remark that: " the number of fin rays given in the text is correct ". Previously I had only cautiously observed that: " the finray numbers D 16, A 19 are rather high for B. platyura in the West Indies In 28 specimens from the West Indies the maximum finray number I found was D 14, A 19 and the maxima recorded by Berry & Rivas (1962) for this region, in as far as I can make out 26 specimens, are the combinations D 14, A 19 and D 15, A 18. Therefore not a single one of 54 specimens examined has the finray formula presented by Lesueur, and though it is very well possible that finray numbers as high as recorded by Lesueur do occasionally occur, it is far fetched, in view of the other discrepancies of the description, that Lesueur would have had such an exceptional individual. Collette & Berry (1965: 391) have taken out of its context a remark made by me, and state that Lesueur's figure shows a depressed caudal peduncle. In the text, how¬ ever, Lesueur compares the caudal peduncle with that of B. truncata (= B. houttuyni of my revisions), and the finray numbers given by him, D 16, A 19, agree also with that species, in which I found D 13-17, A 16-19.

Original from and digitized by National University of Singapore Libraries 152 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Therefore I see no reason to alter my previous opinion that: " Perhaps the most likely explanation of the many discrepancies in text and figure is that both are compo¬ site, assembled from different field notes and sketches." In this connection I do not quite understand why Collette & Berry choose to defend the name argalus, when elsewhere they reject names for the simple reason of having been rarely used. For in the whole Indo-Pacific this species has for long been general¬ ly known as Belone platyura Bennett, 1832, the name also used by me, and in the West-Indies the name in general use was Strongylura (or Tylosurus) ardeola. The name Belone argalus was introduced for this species by Fowler (1919), and subsequently used only a few times. As I have demonstrated (Mees, 1962: 37) the name Belone ardeola Valenciennes, 1846, almost certainly applies to Belone houttuyni, but anyway, Belone platyura Bennett has clear priority over it, and is the name that has had by far the widest use in literature, not only in the Indo-Pacific, but also in the Eastern Atlantic (Cadenat & Marchal, 1963; Cadenat & Roux, 1964) so that it is fortunate that it can be retained for the species.

Esox Houttuyni Walbaum, 1792, versus Esox marinus Walbaum, 1792 These two names, together with a third one that might apply to the same species, were published in the same work on the same page. As first reviser to consider these names and recognize their synonymy, I exercised my rights in selecting Esox Houttuyni as the valid name. This was not only for chauvinistic reasons (Collette & Berry, 1965: 390), but mainly for the very good reason that, while Houttuyn's description and figure, on which Esox Houttuyni was based, are good and can readily be identified as referring to this species, the description on which Esox marinus was based does not make sense at all, and was regarded as identifiable only because of its type-locality, New York, as there is apparently only one common species that far north. In accepting Esox marinus as applicable I was only consistent as I had accepted Esox Imperialis also partly on geographical evidence, though the additional evidence supporting the last-mentioned name is far better than that for Esox marinus. As, however, a choice could be made, naturally I selected the name based on the best description, and not open to the chance of different interpretation in future. It is true, as Collette & Berry pointed out, that the names Strongylura marina and Tylosurus marinus, derived from Esox marinus Walbaum have been much used in literature, but it was by no means the only name applied to the species. In the Americas, the name timucu has been used almost or quite as often*, and also in use are the names almeida, truncata, and galeata. In Africa the name most often used for the species is Belone senegalensis Valenciennes, 1846.

Collette & Berry (1965: 390) have quoted as " ... an even more remarkable statement " my opinion (Mees, 1962: 36) that "... many names in the genus Belone have so often been misused that it is perhaps an advantage to have a set of nomencla- torially clean names available to replace them ". Contrary to Collette & Berry I do not see why this statement is so remarkable. Once a name has been used in literature for several different species, either because of repeated misidentification, or because of disagreement about the identity of the species originally described, it loses its primary use as a short indication of which species an author is referring to. I believe there¬ fore that in a group as the Belonidae, which was in a chaos, it is fortunate that I have found some old names, like Belone houttuyni (Walbaum) and Belone marisrubri (Bloch & Schneider), which on the one hand have clear priority, and on the other hand are not loaded down with misapplications and misinterpretations.

* In this connection it is interesting to point out that though Berry & Rivas (1962) call the species Strongylura marina in their text, in the abstract in bold printing which precedes their article they call it Strongylura timucu. Surely nothing but a slip, but a highly significant one, which shows that the name timucu was as familiar to them and as much in their mind as the name marina! I regard Esox timucu Walbaum, based on Marcgrav, as impossible to identify (Mees, 1962: 73-74).

Original from and digitized by National University of Singapore Libraries Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 153

Subsequent to the publication of my revision, the name Belone houttuyni (Walbaum) has been used by Boeseman (1963), Cadenat & Marchal (1963), Cadenat & Roux (1964), and Daget & litis (1965). In conclusion I would counter Collette & Berry's proposal by proposing that the International Commission: (1) use its plenary powers to suppress for the purposes of priority but not for those of homonymy the following specific names: (a) acus Lacepede, 1803, as published in the combination Sphyraena acus; (b) argalus Lesueur, 1821, as published in the combination Belona argalus; (2) place the following names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) houttuyni Walbaum, 1792, as published in the combination Esox Hout¬ tuyni; (b) imperialis Rafinesque, 1810, as published in the combination Esox Imperialist (c) marisrubri Bloch & Schneider, 1801, as published in the combination Esox belone Var. Maris rubri; (3) place the following names on the Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology: (a) acus Lacepede, 1803, as suppressed under (1) («); (b) argalus Lesueur, 1821, as suppressed under (1) (b).

Literature Cited Albuquerque, R. M. 1956. Peixes de Portugal e elhas adjacentes chaves para a sua determinateao. Portug. Acta Biol. (B) 5 : 1-1164. Berry, F. H. & Rivas, L. R. 1962. Data on six species of needlefishes (Belonidae) from the Western Atlantic. Copeia: 152-160. Boeseman, M. 1963. An annotated list of fishes from the Niger Delta. Zool. Verb. 61, 48 pp. Bonaparte, C. L. 1849. Catalogo Metodico dei Pesci Europei. Napoli, 97 pp. Cadenat, J. & Marchal, E. 1963. Resultats des campagnes oceanographiques de la Reine-Pokou aux lies Sainte-Helene et Ascension. Poissons. Bull. Inst. Fr. d'Afr. Noire 25 (A): 1235-1315, pis. 1-47. Cadenat, J. & Roux, Ch. 1964. Poissons teleosteens. Resultats Scientifiques des Campagnes de la " Calypso " 6 : 81-102. Carus, J. V. 1889-1893. Prodromus Faunae Mediterraneae II. Stuttgart, ix + 854 pp.

Cirino, A. 1653. .. . de Venatione et Natura Animalium libri quinque . . ., II. Panormi, apud J. Bisagni. Collette, B. B. & Berry, F. H. 1965. Recent studies on the needlefishes (Beloni¬ dae) : an evaluation. Copeia; 386-392. 1966. Proposed suppression of three nomina oblita in the family Belonidae (Pisces). Bull. Zool. Nomencl. 22 : 325-329. Cuvier, G. & Valenciennes, A. 1846. Histoire Naturelle des Poissons XVIII. Paris (4° ed.), xviii + 375 pp. Daget, J. & Iltis, A. 1965. Poissons de Cote d'lvoire (eaux douces et saumatres). Mem. Inst. Fr. d'Afr. Noire 74, 385 pp. D'Ancona, U. 1931. Uovo, larve e stadi giovanili di Teleostei. Synentognathi. Fauna e Flora del Golfo di Napoli, Monogr. 38: 157-176. Fowler, H. W. 1919. Notes on tropical American fishes. Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philad. 71 : 128-155. 1922. A list of Hawaiian fishes. Copeia, no. 112: 82-84. Jordan, D. S. & Fordice, M. W. 1887. A review of the American species of Belonidae. Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus. 9 : 339-361. Lanfranco, G. G. 1958. A complete guide to the fishes of Malta. Malta, 74 pp., 41 pis. Mees, G. F. 1962. A preliminary revision of the Belonidae. Zool. Verh. 54, 96 pp. 1964. Further revisional notes on the Belonidae. Zool. Meded. 39:311-326.

Original from and digitized by National University of Singapore Libraries 154 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Metzelaar, J. 1919. Over Tropisch Atlantische Visschen. Amsterdam, 314 pp. Mongitore, A. 1743. Delia Sicilia ricercata nella cose piit memorabili (Coll' aggiunti di due storiche relazioni, una de' terremoti, l'altra delle pestilenze di Sicilia), II. Moreau, E. 1881. Histoire naturelle des Poissons de la France III. Paris, 697 pp. Munro, I. S. R. 1958. The fishes of the New Guinea region. Papua and New Guinea Agric. J. 10 : 97-369. Rafinesque-Schmaltz, C. S. 1810. Caratteri di alcuni nuovi generi e nuove specie di animali epiante della Sicilia con varie osservazioni sopra i medesimi. Palermo, 1809-1810, 105 pp. Rey, L. L. 1947. Peces ganoideos y fitostomos. Mem. Real Acad. Cienc. Madrid 11 : iii-xv + 1-839. Robins, C. R. 1965. Comments on application to validate Xiphias platypterus Shaw & Nodder, 1792, for the Indian Ocean sailfish. Bull. Zool. Nomencl. 22 : 150-151. Smith, J. L. B. 1964. The statute of limitation—stability or chaos? Dept. Ichth. Rhodes Univ. Grahamstown, Occas. Pap. 1:16 pp. Svetovidov, A. N. 1955. [Contribution to the systematics of Belone bellone (L.)] (in Russian). Trav. Inst. Zool. Acad. Sci. USSR 18 : 343-345. Tortonese, E. 1963. Belone imperialis (Raf.) (Pisces) nel Mediterraneo. Doriana 3 (129) : 1-6 1964. Elenco riveduto dei Leptocardi, Ciclostomi, Pesci cartilaginei e ossei del Mare Mediterraneo. Ann. Mus. Civ. Genova 74 : 156-185. Tortonese, E. & Trotti, L. 1949. Catalogo dei pisci del mar Ligure. Atti Accad. Ligure Sci. Lett. 6 : 1-118. Vinciguerra, D. 1885. Appunti ittiologici sulle collezioni del Museo Civico di Genova. VII. Sopra alcuni pesci nuovi pal Golfo di Genova. Ann. Mus. Civ. Genova 22 : 446-475. Weber, M. & de Beaufort, L. F. 1922. The Fishes of the Indo-Australian Archi¬ pelago IV. Leiden, xiii + 410 pp. Whitley, G. P. 1964. Presidential address. A survey of Australian ichthyology. Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W. 89 : 11-127. Woodland, D. J. & Slack-Smith, R. J. 1963. Fishes of Heron Island, Capricorn Group, Great Barrier Reef. Univ. Qld. Pap. Zool. 2 : 15-69.

Original from and digitized by National University of Singapore Libraries Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 155

COSMOPTERIX HOBNER, 1825 (INSECTA: LEPIDOPTERA): PROPOSED DESIGNATION OF A TYPE-SPECIES UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 1742

By Ronald W. Hodges (Entomology Research Division, Agric. Res. Serv., U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.)

The purpose of the present application is to insure stability of the name Cosmopterix in the sense used by taxonomists for the past 100 years and at the same time to continue the use of the familial name Cosmopterigidae. 2. Cosmopterix, the type-genus of Cosmopterigidae Heinemann and Wocke (1876 : 520), was proposed byHiibner (1825) for seven species, including Tinea zieglerella Hiibner and Tinea angustipennella Hiibner, but he did not designate a type-species. 3. Subsequently, two type-species designations have been made. The first was made by Desmarest (1857 : 299) who selected Tinea angustipennella as type-species; the second was made by Walsingham (1909 : 4) who selected Tinea zieglerella as type-species. (A third, supposed, type-species designation was made by Zeller (1839 : 210); however, no name was listed as type, and two of the names originally included by Hiibner in Cosmopterix were given. Thus, no type-species was actually selected. Within the same paper Zeller made the incorrect emendation Cosmopteryx.) 4. The species angustipennella and zieglerella are neither congeneric nor even members of the same family; angustipennella (a junior synonym of Phalaena Tineapedella Linnaeus) is a species of Stathmopoda Herrich-Schaffer, 1853, in the Heliodinidae Heinemann and Wocke (1876 : 518); zieglerella is a species of Cosmopterix in the Cosmopterigidae. Subsequent to Herrich-Schaffer's (1853 : 54, pi. 9, f. 22) definition of Stathmopoda (monobasic), authors, with the excep¬ tion of Desmarest, have followed him in recognizing two genera, Stathmopoda and Cosmopterix. 5. Cosmopterix, as defined by Desmarest (this designation had been over¬ looked until pointed out by me (1961 : 11)), is a heliodinid genus and a senior synonym of Stathmopoda (containing more than 220 species). The family name Heliodinidae has page priority over Cosmopterigidae, so the latter would become a junior synonym of Heliodinidae. A junior synonym of Cosmo¬ pterigidae, Diplosaridae Meyrick (1916 : 339) would be used for the genera currently in Cosmopterigidae. And, a new generic name would have to be proposed for the species in Cosmopterix (auct.) (a genus with more than 140 species). 6. Recognition of Tinea zieglerella as the type-species of Cosmopterix would promote stability of nomenclature by obviating the drastic changes outlined in the preceding paragraph. Therefore, I ask that the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature: (1) use its plenary powers to set aside all designations of type-species for the genus Cosmopterix Hiibner, 1825, made prior to the ruling now

Bull. zool. NomencL, Vol. 23, Part 4. October 1966.

Original from and digitized by National University of Singapore Libraries 156 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

requested and, having done so, designate Tinea zieglerella Hiibner, 1796, as type-species of that genus; (2) place Cosmopterix Hiibner, 1825, type-species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Tinea zieglerella Hiibner, 1796, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology; (3) place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the specific name zieglerella Hiibner, 1796, as published in the binomen Tinea zieglerella (type-species of Cosmopterix Hiibner, 1825); (4) place the name cosmopterigidae (correction of cosmopterygidae) Heinemann and Wocke, 1876 (type-species Cosmopterix Hiibner, 1825) on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology.

Literature Cited Desmarest, E. 1857. In Chenu, J. C. Encyclopedic d'Histoire Naturelle. Papillons Nocturnes de Grey, T., Lord Walsingham. 1909-1915. In Godman and Salvin, Biologia Centrali-Americana, Vol. 42 (Lepidoptera; Heterocera, Vol. 4) Heinemann, H. v. and Wocke, M. F. 1876. Die Schmetterlinge Deutschlands und der Schweiz, Vol. 2, pt. 2. Schwetschke und Sohn, Braunschweig. Herrich-Schaffer, G. A. W. 1853-1855. Systematische Bearbeitung der Schmetter¬ linge von Europa, Vol. 5 (text) Hodges, R. W. 1962. Revision of the Cosmopterigidae of America north of Mexico, with a definition of the Momphidae and Walshiidae (Lepidoptera: Gele- chioidea). Ent. Americana, 42 : 1-171 Hubner, J. 1816-1825. Verzeichniss bekannter Schmettlinge [sic], Author, Augs¬ burg. 431 pp. Meyrick, E. 1916. Exotic Microlepidoptera, Vol. 1, pt. 11 : 321-352 Zeller, P. C. 1839. Versuch einer naturgemassen Eintheilung der Schaben, Tinea. Isis von Oken, 3 : 167-220

Original from and digitized by National University of Singapore Libraries Bulletin ofZoological Nomenclature 157

CHROMIS AUREUS STEINDACHNER, 1864 (PISCES, CICHLIDAE): PROPOSED ADDITION TO THE OFFICIAL LIST OF SPECIFIC NAMES. Z.N.(S.) 1743 By E. Trewavas (British Museum (Natural History), London)

Chromis aureus Steindachner, 1864 was described from an unstated number of specimens from West Africa. One specimen in the Vienna Museum (No. 32874) is registered as " typus " of this species and agrees with the description, figure and size given by Steindachner. In 1870 Steindachner himself placed the name in the synonymy of " Chromis niloticus " (= Tilapia nilotica), along with other names some of which have subsequently been recognized as valid. Later it was placed by Pellegrin (1903) and Boulenger (1915) in the synonymy of another species of Tilapia. The species which this type specimen represents was not recognized until 1951, when Steinitz described it as a subspecies of T. nilotica from a small isolated population in a rather specialized habitat in the Jordan Valley, naming it T. n. exul. In 1954 it was described again as T. monodi Daget, from the Middle Niger. Daget later (e.g. 1961) found it more widely distributed in West Africa. Both these synonyms are subjective. Although the name Chromis aureus has never been literally oblitum, the definition of nomen oblitum in Art. 23b would technically cover it, because it was not used as a senior synonym since its proposal in 1864, until now, when I propose so to use it (Trewavas, 1966, and in a monograph of the genus Tilapia in preparation). All the time the description and figure and at least one type- specimen in Vienna have been available. I therefore ask the Commission to place the following on the Official List of Specific names in Zoology: aureus Steindachner, 1864, as published in the binomen Chromis aureus with the type-locality narrowed from the original datum "West Afrika " to " River Senegal", where the species which it is believed to represent is known to occur.

References Boulenger, G. A. 1915. Cat. Afr. freshw. Fishes vol. 2 Daget, J. 1954. Les poissons du Niger Superieur. Mem. Inst, franc. Afr. Noire No. 36 : 5-391 1961. Contribution a la connaissance de la faune du Fleuve Senegal. Poissons du Baoule et du Bakoy. Bull. Mus. Hist. nat. Paris (2) 32 : 506-512 Pellegrin, J. 1903. Contribution a l'etude anatomique, biologique et taxonomique des poissons de la famille des cichlides. Mem. Soc. zool. Fr. 16 : 41-401, pis. iv-vii Steindachner, F. 1864. Ichthyologische Mittheilungen (VII). Verb, zool.-bot. Ges. Wien 14 : 223-232, pis. vii and viii. (p. 229, pi. viii, fig. 5) Steinitz, H. 1951. A new subspecies of Tilapia nilotica (L.) from Palestine. Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (12) 4 : 513-518 Trewavas, E. 1966 (in the press). Tilapia aurea (Steindachner) and the status of Tilapia nilotica exul, T. monodi and T. lemassoni (Pisces, Cichlidae)

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 23, Part 4. October 1966.

Original from and digitized by National University of Singapore Libraries 158 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

OTOLITHUS AUREUS RICHARDSON, 1846 (PISCES, SCIAENIDAE): PROPOSED ADDITION TO THE OFFICIAL LIST OF SPECIFIC NAMES. Z.N.(S.) 1744 By E. Trewavas (British Museum (Natural History), London)

Otolithus aureus Richardson, 1846, was described from a specimen from Canton, now lost, and an unpublished illustration in the British Museum with the reference number " Icon. Reeves 234 ". Since the type was lost even in 1860, the date of the publication of vol. 2 of Giinther's " Catalogue of Fishes ", Giinther recorded the name among his species dubiae of Otolithus. At that time there was no specimen in the British Museum to match " Icon. Reeves 234 ", but specimens have since been received although they were only recently recognized as this species (Trewavas & Yazdani, 1966). Meanwhile the species has been redescribed under three names, Sciaena ophiceps Alcock, 1889 (Bay of Bengal) Johnius birtwistlei Fowler, 1933 (Singapore) Pseudosciaena acuta Tang, 1937 (Kwantung). These are, of course, all subjective synonyms and the evidence for their synonymy is given by Trewavas & Yazdani (I.e.) The name O. aureus has not been used, to my knowledge, since its listing by Giinther as a species dubia, except by Chu, Lo & Wu (1913), who regard it as a junior synonym of Otolithus ruber Schneider, 1801 (wrongly, according to evidence given by Trewavas and Yazdani). Although it was properly a nomen dubium it would come within the definition of nomen oblitum in Art. 23(b). Following the taxonomic procedure accepted before 1961, Trewavas & Yazdani have established it by publishing a photograph of " icon. Reeves 234 " and selecting a neotype from Hong Kong waters, very near the type locality. They have made O. aureus type species of a new genus. They have also given full reasons for the synonymy recorded above, with photographs of two of the syntypes of Sciaena ophiceps. Strict adherence to Art. 23(b) would require the beheading of this synonymy by the removal of O. aureus and perhaps also of S. ophiceps, unless the mention of this name by Fowler in 1933 to decide (wrongly as we maintain) that it was distinct from J. birtwistlei is sufficient to drag it within the fifty-year limit. No useful purpose could be served by such action. The species has received little attention. The name acuta has been used by Chinese authors only three times to my knowledge, and they would be less disturbed by replacing it by aureus than by birtwistlei, used only once (or ophiceps if this is available). O. aureus is one of the names of the vast Indo-Pacific fauna which, as J. L. B. Smith (1964) points out, cannot be expected to be stabilized until revisions covering the whole area are carried out. Indeed all of Prof. Smith's arguments against Art. 23(b) apply in force to this case, not least the fact that a proposed restriction of 23(b) allegedly under consideration would, if adopted at a future Congress, immediately re-establish the name.

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 23, Part 4. October 1966.

Original from and digitized by National University of Singapore Libraries Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 159

I therefore request the Commission, if necessary by the use of its plenary powers, to place the following on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: aureus Richardson, 1846, as published in the binomen Otolithus aureus, type species of Chrysochir Trewavas & Yazdani, 1966 (Pisces, Sciaenidae).

References Alcock, A. 1889. J. Asiatic Soc. Bengal 18 (2) : 296-305 (p. 300) Chu, Y. T., Lo, Y. L., and Wu, H. L. 1963. A study of the classification of the sciaenoid fishes of China ... pp. i-ii, 1-100, pis. i-xl. Shanghai Fisheries Institute Fowler, H. W. 1933. Bull. U.S. Nat. Mus. 100 (12) : 1-465 (p. 403) Richardson, J. 1846. Report on the ichthyology of China and Japan. Rep. 15th Meeting Br. Ass. Adv. Sc. (London) : 187-320 (p. 224) Tang, D. S. 1937. Amoy mar. biol. Bull. 2 (2) : 47-88 (p. 62, fig. 5) (not seen, quoted from Lin) Trewavas, E., and Yazdani, G. M. 1966. Chrysochir, a new genus for the sciaenid fish Otolithus aureus Richardson. Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (13) 8 : 249-255, pi. vi.

Original from and digitized by National University of Singapore Libraries 160 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

MACROCHOETA MACQUART, 1851 (INSECTA, DIPTERA): PROPOSED SUPPRESSION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 1745 By A. C. Pont (British Museum (Natural History), London) This application concerns the threat to stability in the nomenclature of the Muscidae caused by the discovery that Macrochoeta Macquart, 1851, is a senior subjective synonym of Pygophora Schiner, 1868. 2. Macquart 1851 (Mem. Soc. Sci. Agric. Lille 1850 : 242) described Macrochoeta rufipes, as a new genus and a new species. 3. Bigot 1882 (Ann. Soc. ent. France (6) 2 : 11 and 20) alluded to the genus and, without having seen it, included it in a key to Muscid genera. 4. Stein 1919 (Arch. Naturgesch. 83 A 1 [1917] : 86), in the preamble to his catalogue of world Muscidae, stated that he was unable to recognize Macro¬ choeta (sic) and was therefore omitting it from his list. 5. Tillyard 1926 (The Insects of Australia and New Zealand: 374) referred to Macrochaeta (sic) as a small genus peculiar to Australia. 6. Albuquerque 1949 (Revista bras. Biol. 9 : 440) was the first student since Macquart to examine the holotype, and he stated that Macrochaeta (sic) was very similar to Pygophora Schiner. 7. Pont (in press) has studied the holotype of Macrochoeta rufipes and concluded that it is identical with the species Pygophora abnorma Paramonov, 1961. He established this specific synonymy, and stated the desirability of suppressing Macrochoeta by use of the plenary powers. 8. Grube 1850 (Arch. Naturgesch. 16 (1) : 312) erected the genus Macro¬ chaeta for a group of polychaete worms. 9. Macrochaeta Grube and Macrochoeta Macquart are not homonyms, despite identity of meaning. As it fulfils the provisions of Article 32 of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, 1961, Macrochoeta is the correct spelling of this name, although dipterists would usually spell this suffix " -chaeta ". Macrochaeta Macquart, of authors, is an incorrect subsequent spelling and does not enter into homonymy under Article 54(4) of the Code. 10. Schiner 1868 (Nov. Reise, Diptera: 295) described Pygophora apicalis, as a new genus and a new species. 11. Every student dealing with this group of has used Schiner's name, and there has until now never been any doubt concerning its validity. Van der Wulp, Stein, Malloch, Seguy, Van Emden, Hennig, Paramonov, Crosskey and Snyder have used the name Pygophora in a total of at least 39 papers. 12. Crosskey 1962 (Trans. Zool. Soc. Lond. 29 (6) : 393-551) has revised the genus which now includes 53 species recognized as valid and 11 names placed in synonymy. Several new species await description. 13. The transfer of these species to the unrecognized generic name Macro¬ choeta is against the interest of nomenclatural stability and the name Pygophora should continue to be available for this generic concept. The interests of stability and uniformity in nomenclature will best be served if Macrochoeta is suppressed, and the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is therefore asked:

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 23, Part 4. October 1966.

Original from and digitized by National University of Singapore Libraries Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 161

(1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the generic name Macrochoeta Macquart, 1851, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy, in the interests of stability and uni¬ formity of nomenclature in the Muscidae; (2) to place the following generic name on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: Pygophora Schiner, 1868 (gender : feminine), type-species, by monotypy, Pygophora apicalis Schiner, 1868; (3) to place the following specific name on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: apicalis Schiner, 1868, as published in the binomen Pygophora apicalis (type-species of Pygophora Schiner, 1868); (4) to place the following generic name on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Names in Zoology: Macrochoeta Macquart, 1851 (as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above).

Original from and digitized by National University of Singapore Libraries 162 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

AMPHISBAENA MILDEI PETERS, 1878 (REPTILIA): PROPOSED SUPPRESSION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 1746 By Carl Gans (State University of New York, Buffalo, U.S.A.)

In 1878, W. C. H. Peters (Monats. Ber. Akad. Wiss. Berlin 1878 : 779) described the new species Amphisbaena mildei on the basis of a single specimen from " Porto Alegre The holotype was once deposited as No. 6255 in the Zoologische Museum der Universitat, Berlin. Dr. Heinz Wermuth, former curator of this collection, has informed me that the specimen was lost when the materials were moved from storage after World War II. No other specimens have been reported. 2. The name was retained by G. A. Boulenger in his 1885 Catalogue of the Lizards in the British Museum Volume 2, but others placed it into the synonymy of Amphisbaena darwini D.B. from which Peters separated it by the arrangement of the head scales. 3. Revisionary work now shows that Amphisbaena darwini auct. is a com¬ plex of at least 4 species, 3 of which occur in the immediate vicinity of Porto Alegre, R.G.S., Brazil. It is possible to assign the name mildei to one of these (.Amphisbaena darwini Dumeril and Bibron, 1839, Erpetologie Generate ou Histoire Naturelle des Reptiles 5 : 490) with some degree of certainty, although there is a suspicion that the specimen may have been abnormal since the original description refers to asymmetries (p. 780). Unfortunately, the description lacks mention of the very obvious caudal tuberculation which is uniformly present in specimens of A. darwini of this size collected at Porto Alegre, and also of the number of mid body segments. The issue is further complicated by the fact that darwini has several races and at least 3 recognizable populations of this species occur within 50 miles of the capital city of P6rto Alegre. Two of these lack caudal tuberculation so that the information given by Peters does not permit unequivocal assignment of the name to any of the forms in this region. 4. The name in question has been cited only 5 times in the present century, twice in a list without any more comments except that the form is known from the type specimen only (Goeldi, 1902; Burt & Burt 1933) and 3 times in syno¬ nymy, also without comment, by do Amaral who placed a host of series of forms into synonymy as aberrations. 5. There are available names for each of the other populations concerned, but all except A. darwini date after 1878. The one for the population from which the type ofAmphisbaena mildei was most probably sampled is Amphisbaena trachura Cope, 1885 (Proc. Philadelphia Academy of Natural Sciences : 189), of which the type specimen is still available and leaves no doubt of its assignment. This name was most recently used by Vanzolini (1951 thesis; 1953 Copeia : 124). 6. The problem could be solved by designating a neotype to replace the type lost from the Zoological Museum der Universitat, Berlin, but as the name mildei has not been used in the 50 years prior to 1961 (publication date of the Code) in primary zoological nomenclature except in synonymy (see paragraph

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 23, Part 4. October 1966.

Original from and digitized by National University of Singapore Libraries Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 163

4 above), it is virtually a nomen oblitum and its suppression as such would create less confusion than the probable replacement of Amphisbaena trachura Cope by the practically unknown name A. mildei Peters. Such action by the Commission would certainly serve the principle of stability by stopping specula¬ tion on this issue, and by preventing resurrection of this name and disturbance of the literature should a specimen having some claim to typical status be found in the future. This is the action which has been recommended in a paper on this group accepted for publication in the Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History. 7. Unfortunately the Secretary of the Commission informs me that the application of Article 23(b) is now out of the question until after the next Congress of Zoology since this Article has been suspended by a majority vote of the Commission until that time. I do not feel that such a long delay is in the interest of stability. 8. In consequence the International Commission on Zoological Nomen¬ clature is requested: (a) to use its plenary powers to suppress the name Amphisbaena mildei Peters, 1878 for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not of the Law of Homonymy; (b) to place the name trachura Cope, 1885, as published in the binomen Amphisbaena trachura, on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology; (c) to place mildei Peters, 1878, as published in the binomen Amphisbaena mildei, as suppressed in (a) above, on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology.

Original from and digitized by National University of Singapore Libraries 164 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

STENOPODINAE IN INSECTA AND IN CRUSTACEA: PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO REMOVE THE HOMONYMY. Z.N.(S.) 1747 By W. E. China (British Museum (Natural History), London)

The family-group name stenopodinae was established by Stal in 1859 {Berlin ent. Zeit. 3 : 328) in the insect order Hemiptera (family reduviidae) under the group name stenopodida. It was based on the genus Stenopoda Laporte, 1833 {Essai Class, syst. Hemipt., Mag. Zool. 2, Suppl.: 26). In 1879, Huxley established the family-group name stenopodidae (correction of steno- pidae, Proc. zool. Soc. London 1878 : 783) in the Crustacea, based on the genus Stenopus Latreille, 1819 (Nouv. Diet. Hist. nat. (ed. 2) 30 : 71). 2. The insect group name therefore has priority over the name, but in Opinion 522 (Ops. Decls. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 19 : 211, 1958) the family-group name stenopodidae Huxley [1879], was placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology and the genus Stenopus Latreille, 1819, on the Official List of Generic Names on Zoology. 3. In order to resolve the homonymy it is necessary, therefore, to change the name of the insect family-group. It is suggested that the least confusion would result if the name stenopodinae were changed to stenopodainae. This would have to be done under the plenary powers. 4. The International Commission is therefore requested: (1) to use its plenary powers to emend the family-group name stenopodinae Stal, 1859 (correction of stenopodida) (Hemiptera, reduviidae) to stenopodainae; (2) to place on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology the family-group name stenopodainae (emend, under the plenary powers of stenopodida) Stal, 1859 (type-genus Stenopoda Laporte, 1833); (3) to place the family-group name stenopodinae (correction of steno¬ podida) Stal, 1859 (type-genus Stenopoda Laporte, 1833) on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology; (4) to place the generic name Stenopoda Laporte, 1833 (gender : feminine), type-species, by montypy, Stenopoda cinerea Laporte, 1833, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology; (5) to place the specific name cinerea Laporte, 1833, as published in the binomen Stenopoda cinerea (type-species of Stenopoda Laporte, 1833) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology.

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 23, Part 4. October 1966.

Original from and digitized by National University of Singapore Libraries Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 165

SCOPTES HUBNER [1819] v. CAP YS HEWITSON 1864 (LEPIDOPTERA, LYCAENIDAE), A CASE OF A FORGOTTEN NAME. Z.N.(S.) 1748 By N. D. Riley (British Museum (Natural History), London) Hubner [1819], in his well known Verzeichnis bekannter Schmetterlinge introduced the generic name Scoptes (: 111) for a heterogeneous group of three species which he called Scoptes alpheus Cram. 182. E.F.; S. protumnus Linn. Syst. Pap. 258; and S. crotopus Cram. 390. G.FI. In the same work Hubner also placed protumnus (under its synonym petalus Cram. 243. C.D.) in his new genus Thestor (I.e. : 73) and crotopus in his new genus Euselasia (I.e. : 24). 2. In 1864 Hewitson {III. Diurn. Lep. : 58) introduced the generic name Capys and included in it one species only, namely Papilio alpheus Cramer, which automatically became its type-species by monotypy. 3. Five years later Butler (1869, Cat. Diurn. Lep. Fabricius Brit. Mus. : 176) in a footnote to Scoptes Hubner, adds " Capys of Hewitson ". Butler in this work refers only one species, namely alpheus Cramer, to Scoptes, but makes no statement at all as to whether or not he regarded alpheus as the type-species of Scoptes. His action cannot be construed as fixing alpheus as the type-species of Scoptes. 4. Scudder in 1775 {Proc. Amer. Acad. Arts Sci. Boston 10 : 267) in his Sketch of the Generic Names of the Butterflies, recited these facts, but did not select a type-species for Scoptes, considering, for reasons that no longer hold good, that this was unnecessary. 5. I have been unable to discover any subsequent action by any author that could possibly be accepted as fixing the type-species of Scoptes. Indeed I have only traced two other quotations of the name in the whole of the subsequent literature. The first is by Kirby (1871, Syn. Cat. Diurn. Lep. : 337) who quotes it as a synonym of Axiocerses Hubner ([1819], I.e. : 72); the second by Aurivillius (1898, Rhop. Aeth. : 335, 337) who treats it as a partial synonym of both Capys Hewitson and Leptomyrina Butler 1898, to both of which it is con¬ siderably senior. 6. The question at issue therefore is to decide which of the three nominal species originally included in Scoptes by Hubner should be selected as its type- species, bearing in mind the desirability of causing the least possible disturbance to other generic names involved. If we select crotopus, then Scoptes becomes a subjective synonym of Euse¬ lasia, one of the better known genera of Riodinidae, and a first reviser choice becomes necessary as between these two names, since according to Hemming (1937, Hubner 2 : 198, 253) both these Hubnerian names were published " early in 1819 "; and in all probability a certain amount of taxonomic research would also be necessary. If we select protumnus, then Scoptes becomes an objective synonym of Thestor, which has protumnus as its type-species and is a very well-known

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 23, Part 4. October 1966.

Original from and digitized by National University of Singapore Libraries 166 Bulletin ofZoological Nomenclature

Lycaenid generic name, already the subject of considerable misuse. Here again, and for precisely the same reason, a first reviser choice would be neces¬ sary. If alpheus is selected, then Scoptes becomes an objective senior synonym of Capys Hewitson, which also has alpheus as its type-species and is the current name, and has been for 100 years, for a well known genus of South African Lycaenidae. 7. Whichever of these courses is adopted there will be a risk of disturbance of long accepted practice (first and second choices), or an actual disturbance (third choice). As the consequences of adopting the third choice can be easily avoided by the Commission acting either under its plenary powers, or under Article 23(b) if still in force, whereas this does not apply in the other two cases, I here and now select Papilio alpheus Cramer [1777], Hit I. Kapellen 2 (16) : 131, pi. 183, figs. E.F. to be the type-species of Scoptes Hiibner [1819] Verz. bekannt. Schmett.: 111, and at the same time invite the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to use its plenary powers to suppress this name for purposes of Priority, but not Homonymy and to place it on the Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names.

Original from and digitized by National University of Singapore Libraries Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 167

CORNUFER UNICOLOR TSCHUDI 1838 (AMPHIBIA, SALIENTIA); REQUEST FOR SUPPRESSION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS Z.N.(S.) 1749 By Richard G. Zweifel (The American Museum of Natural History, New York, U.S.A.) In 1838, Tschudi (Classification der Batrachier. . . Neuchatel, p. 28 a pre¬ print; also published in Mem. Soc. Neuchatel, 2, 1839 [1840]) described the new genus and species Cornufer unicolor. He based the description on two specimens said to be from New Guinea. Subsequently, the name Cornufer came to be used for ranid found on islands from Fiji through the Solomon Islands and New Guinea to the Philippine Islands. The most recently published list (Brown, 1965, Breviora 218) includes 27 species of Cornufer. There are only two direct references to the type specimens of Cornufer unicolor in the literature following the original description: Dumeril and Bibron (1841, Erpetologie Generate, 8 : 616-618) redescribed the syntype located in the Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle, Paris; van Kampen (1923, Amphibia of the Indo-Australian archipelago: 105) identified the syntype in the Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, as a microhylid , Sphenophryne cornuta. A specimen referred by Dumeril (1853, Ann. Sci. nat., Zool. (3) 19 : 174) to C. unicolor evidently is the only other individual of this species reported in the literature. Because no additional specimens were discovered in more than 100 years and because the published descriptions were inadequate to permit me to resolve the question of the identity of the syntype in the Museum in Paris, I asked Dr. Jean Guibe if the specimen might still be found in the Museum. Dr. Guibe found the long lost specimen, which bears number 747, and generously sent it for my examination. Elsewhere (Copeia, in press) I present the results of a detailed investigation of the identity of the Paris syntype and designate it lectotype of Cornufer unicolor. Designation of the Paris specimen as lectotype is justifiable on two grounds: van Kampen (loc. cit.) did this in spirit if not in fact when he identified the syntype in the Leiden Museum as a specimen of another species although he continued to recognize Cornufer unicolor as valid; the original description was based almost entirely on the specimen in the Paris Museum. The lectotype is not a ranid frog as has been supposed, but possesses the skeletal characteristics of the leptodactylid genus Eleutherodactylus: vomerine and maxillary teeth present; terminal phalanges T-shaped; pectoral girdle arciferal; sternum without a bony style; sacral diapophyses cylindrical; free coccyx articulating by paired condyles. My examination of the specimen verified the descriptions of external features given by Tschudi {loc. cit.) and Dumeril and Bibron {loc. cit.) and permitted evaluation of other characters as well. I regard the lectotype as an individual of the species described by Barbour (1914, Mem. Mus. comp. Zool., 44 : 252) as Leptodactylus inoptatus, type locality Diquini, Haiti, and known at the present time as Eleutherodactylus inoptatus.

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 23, Part 4. October 1966.

Original from and digitized by National University of Singapore Libraries 168 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Cornufer Tschudi, 1838, antedates Eleutherodactylus Dumeril and Bibron, 1841 (op. cit.: 620; see Myers, 1962, Copeia: 195-202 for a discussion of the generic name Eleutherodactylus), and according to the Law of Priority the former should replace the latter. Such strict application of the Law could create considerable confusion. Not only does the genus Eleutherodactylus include more Ihan two hundred species, with all that implies for the literature of systematics and related fields, but species of this genus also have been used in experimental studies in such fields as embryology and genetics. Use of the name Cornufer for the ranid frogs has not achieved stability, and Platymantis, the name that is available to replace Cornufer, has been used widely and recently for a large proportion of the species placed in Cornufer by Brown (op. cit.). Therefore, it seems in the best interest of stability of nomenclature to suppress the name Cornufer and validate the use of Eleutherodactylus. I feel that the specific name unicolor should be suppressed along with Cornufer, although it is demonstrably a senior synonym of inoptatus. The name inoptatus has been in use for more than 50 years, and replacing it with unicolor would serve no useful purpose. Such replacement would carry the seed of future confusion, for there is a valid species Eleutherodactylus unicolor Stejneger (1904, Kept. U.S. nat. Mus., 1902: 597) of Puerto Rico for which a replacement name would have to be supplied. Accordingly, I request the International Commission of Zoological Nomen¬ clature : (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the following names for the pur¬ poses of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of - nymy: (a) the generic name Cornufer Tschudi, 1838; (b)the specific name unicolor Tschudi, 1838, as published in the binomen Cornufer unicolor; (2) to place the generic name Eleutherodactylus Dumeril and Bibron, 1841 (gender : masculine), type-species, by monotypy, Hylodes martini- censis Tschudi, 1838, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology; (3) to place the following specific names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) martinicensis Tschudi, 1838, as published in the binomen Hylodes martinicensis (type-species of Eleutherodactylus Dumeril and Bibron, 1841); (b) inoptatus Barbour, 1914, as published in the binomen Leptodactylus inoptatus; (4) to place the generic name suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) (a) above on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology; (5) to place the specific name suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) (b) above on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology.

Original from and digitized by National University of Singapore Libraries Bulletin ofZoological Nomenclature 169

RANA MACULATA DAUDIN, 1801 (AMPHIBIA) : PROPOSED SUPPRESSION UNDER PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 1750 By Hobart M. Smith (Department of Zoology and Museum of Natural History, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois, U.S.A.); John D. Lynch (Museum of Natural History, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas, U.S.A.), and Robert W. Reese (Department of Biology, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado, U.S.A.)

In 1801 Daudin described, in Sonnini and Latreille's great Natural History of Reptiles, a Rana maculata (vol. 2, pp. 161-162) which has apparently not been cited since 1841 and has never been authoritatively allocated to the synonymy of any recognized species. It antedates Rana maculata Brocchi, 1877, one of the earliest names applied to a well-recognized species of frog of Central America and Mexico. Rana maculata Daudin, although never allocated in the past, also is the earliest name applied to any species of frog of Puerto Rico and is apparent¬ ly referable to the species now known as Eleutherodactylus richmondi Stejneger, 1904. As a senior synonym of one well-recognized species, and a senior homo¬ nym of another, Rana maculata Daudin is a hazard to nomenclatural stability. We hereby request its suppression in order to preserve the two names it ante¬ dates. 2. The authorship and date of publication of Sonnini and Latreille's four- volume work has been thoroughly explored by Harper (1940). It is sufficient here to say that convincing evidence exists for fixation of the date of publication as 1801, the authorship of the work as a whole as Sonnini and Latreille, and the authorship of the frog description as Daudin in Sonnini and Latreille. Redes- criptions appear in two of Daudin's works (1802: 37-38, pi. 17, fig. 2; and 1803: 111-112). Tschudi (1839: 38, 78) included the name in the synonymy of Cystignathus (= Leptodactylus) ocellatus (Linnaeus, 1758), a species still recognized by that name, but Dumeril and Bibron (1841: 397, 402) objected, stating that it belongs to some genus other than Rana. So far as we are aware Daudin's name has not been mentioned since. 3. That Daudin's name has not been fixed is due largely to the facts that the specimen on which it was based was lost long ago (Dumeril and Bibron apparent¬ ly could not find it, and Guibe, 1950, does not list it), and that none of the anuran synopses (Gunther, 1859; Boulenger, 1882; Nieden, 1923) mention even the species, much less the specimens on which it was based. It is not of course mentioned in any of the reviews of Rana. 4. Actually the description of Rana maculata Daudin is the earliest record of any herpetozoan from Puerto Rico. Stejneger (1904: 556) does point out that the earliest observations on Puerto Rican herpetology were made by the members of a French expedition from 1796-1798 under the direction of Captain Baudin. Unfortunately the synopsis of the collections in Ledru's account (1810(2): 210-214) gives no clue to the fate of the herpetological material,

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 23, Part 4. October 1966.

Original from and digitized by National University of Singapore Libraries 170 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature although some other parts were specifically mentioned as having been de¬ posited in the Paris Museum. Daudin (1802: 38) does clearly state that the type of Rana maculata was in the Paris museum, and Tschudi (1839: 38) expli¬ citly states he saw it there. No one has reported it since then. Stejneger (1904: 556) regarded it worthless to allocate Ledru's names for 12 species listed for Puerto Rico, indeed with good reason. Nevertheless it is of interest to note that Ledru did list two species of : Rana ocellata Linnaeus and Rana arioreaLinnaeus.lt is possible that Tschudi's reference of Rana maculata Daudin to Cystignathus ocellatus was influenced by Ledru's citation of the name, although Tschudi presumably actually saw the specimen. Ledru's Rana arborea (= Hyla arborea) was no doubt based upon one of the spatulate-toed Eleutherodactylus of the island, probably portoricensis. Daudin mentions no frog from Puerto Rico other than his Rana maculata.

5. The applicability of Ledru's names is of minor importance. Daudin's Rana maculata, however, must be dealt with. The original description (freely translated from the original French) follows:

" One can easily recognize this species by the color of the upper part of its body, which is a red-brown with three spots of a clear green on the head, and another round one of the same color on each shoulder. Its body has a slender form and is only an inch in length. The head is large, with a pointed nose and protruding eyes. It has some spots of pale gray below the eyes, and a very narrow yellowish line extending from the eyes along the sides of the body, the under side of which is granular and of a whitish gray marbled with dots and blackish streaks. All the toes are slender, elongate and completely separated.

" This new species has been reported from the island of Portorico, by Mauge, a very zealous naturalist who accompanied Captain Baudin on the recently undertaken voyage to southern seas, and described by Daudin." 6. In 1802 Daudin gave a very brief Latin diagnosis, located the three green spots on the head (one between the eyes and one small one on each tympanum), equated the digits and body form with those of Pelodytes punctatus, stated that it was " found under damp leaves in the mountains of the island and is in the galleries of the Museum d'Histoire Naturelle de Paris." No significant addition¬ al information is added in the 1803 work, although he noted the death of Mauge on a later voyage to New Guinea with Capt. Baudin, and that he had amassed a " considerable collection " of birds, insects and terrestrial shellfish in Puerto Rico. No mention is made of herpetological collections. The pro¬ portions, size and coloration described and shown in his figure closely match those of Eleutherodactylus richmondi Stejneger, 1904, although the large green spots shown in the figure and described in his text are obviously artifacts effected in preservation. The habitat is the same, since Schmidt (1928: 62-64) found specimens " under stones or palm leaves on the trail or on damp ground " on the El Yunque, from 890 ft. to the peak of the mountain, to which it is " apparently confined ". No other species known from Puerto Rico agrees satisfactorily with the information available on Rana maculata. We therefore conclude that Rana maculata Daudin, 1801, is a senior synonym of Eleuthero¬ dactylus richmondi Stejneger, 1904.

Original from and digitized by National University of Singapore Libraries Bulletin ofZoological Nomenclature 171

7. In 1877 Brocchi described a Rana maculata as new from Totonicapam, Guatemala. In 1881 he redescribed and figured the species (1881: 13, pi. 3, fig. 2). Boulenger (1882: 42) recognized the species as valid in his early review of the genus (as did Gunther, 1900: 201-2) but later (1920: 434) synonymized it with Rana halecina Daudin, 1803 (= Rana pipiens Schreber, 1782), where Kellogg left it (1932: 203). Schmidt and Stuart (1941: 239-241) distinguished it from Rana pipiens but did not allocate it to any well-recognized taxon. Smith (1959: 212-216) fixed the name with a well-characterized species, but Stuart (1963: 45) synonymized it with Rana macroglossa Brocchi, 1877, described in the same work as Rana maculata, on the ground that macroglossa " is fairly well entrenched in the literature ". Smith (Joe. cit.) had recognized them as synonymous, but had exercised the choice of first reviser to select Rana maculata, the better-characterized form, with a precise type-locality, as the senior name. One of us (Lynch) has, through the courtesy of Dr. Jean Guibe, re-examined the syntypes (three each) of both nominal species, in the Museum d'Histoire Naturelle of Paris. We here designate No. 6321 the lectotype of Rana macro¬ glossa (the other specimens, Nos. 6321A-B, becoming lectoparatypes), and No. 6412A the lectotype of Rana maculata (the other specimens, Nos. 6412, 6412B, becoming lectoparatypes). The lectotype of Rana macroglossa clearly represents the species Rana pipiens, thus effectively eliminating the name Rana macroglossa from consideration in the present context. All specimens of Rana maculata, as well as the two lectoparatypes of Rana macroglossa, represent a distinct species for which Rana maculata Brocchi is the earliest name available. Rana maculata Brocchi, 1877, therefore, remains the valid name for a Central American and Mexican frog, except for its junior homonymy with Rana maculata Daudin, 1801. 8. It should be noted, although only of passing interest and not significant nomenclaturally, that Rana maculata Daudin, which we have shown belongs to another genus and should be cited in the context of present knowledge as Eleutherodactylus maculatus (Daudin), is a senior secondary homonym of Hylodes maculatus Agassiz, 1850 (= Pseudacris triseriata maculata), which was originally proposed in a nominal genus (Hylodes Fitzinger, 1843) now accepted as a junior synonym of Eleutherodactylus Fitzinger, 1841 (see Stejneger, 1904: 582). The 1961 Code fortunately prevents the necessity of replacement of junior secondary homonyms that are not in a state of homonymy at the time of discovery. 9. Inasmuch as the name Rana maculata Daudin, 1801, (1) would, if re¬ tained, replace through senior synonymy Eleutherodactylus richmondi Stejneger, 1904, which has remained stable for over 60 years; (2) would, if retained, require replacement through senior homonymy of Rana maculata Brocchi, 1877, by the name Rana melanosoma Gunther, 1900, which has never been used since its original description as the valid name for any taxon; (3) is a nomen oblitum of over 150 years; and (4) has been considered a nomen dubium for over 150 years, we now request the Commission (i) To exercise its plenary powers to suppress the specific name maculata as used in the combination Rana maculata Daudin, 1801, for purposes of both the Law of Priority and the Law of Homonymy; and

Original from and digitized by National University of Singapore Libraries 172 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

(ii) To place the name maculata, as above, on the Official Index of Invalid and Rejected Species-Group Names in Zoology. 10. We refrain from asking that Rana maculata Brocchi and Eleuthero- dactylus richmondi Stejneger be added to the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology because their specific relationship to adjacent taxa remains to be determined with finality. Their conservation would, by explicit statement of the introduction to the List of Specific Names, require usage for the species to which they belong whether they are the earliest available names or not. Premature conservation therefore would jeopardize nomenclature, should the species, as ultimately understood, prove to contain an earlier but unconserved name. Until procedural rules are devised to prevent such occurrences we prefer to defer conservation wherever possible.

References Boulenger, George Albert. 1882. Catalogue of the Batrachia Salientia s. Ecaudata in the collection of the British Museum. Taylor and Francis, London, xvi, 503 pp., 30 pis. 1920. A monograph of the American frogs of the genus Rana. Proc. Amer. Acad. Arts. Sci. 55 : 411-480. Brocchi, Paul. 1877. Sur quelques batraciens Raniformes et Bufoniformes de FAmerique Centrale. Bull. Soc. Philom. Paris (7) 1 : 175-197. 1881. Etudes des batriciens de I'Amerique Centrale. Mission Scientifique du Mexique et dans FAmerique Centrale, part 3, sect. 2, livr. 1 : 1-56, pis. 1-5, 9, 10. Daudin, F. M. 1802. Histoire naturelle des rainettes, des grenouilles et des crapauds. Bertrandet, Paris. 71 pp., 38 pis. (folio edition, here cited; we have not seen the simultaneously published quarto edition of 108 pp. and 38 pis., but in the following work he cites p. 57 for Rana maculata in the quarto edition). 1803. Histoire naturelle, generale et particuliere des reptiles . . . Dufart, Paris. Vol. 8, 439 pp., 8 pis. Dumeril, A. M. C., and Bibron, G. 1841. Erpetologie generale au histoire naturelle complete des reptiles. Roret, Paris. Vol. 8, vi + 792 pp. Guibe, Jean. 1950. Catalogue des types d'amphibiens du Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle. Imprimerie Nationale, Paris. 71 pp. Gunther, Albert C. L. G. 1859. Catalogue of the Batrachia Salientia in the collection of the British Museum. Taylor and Francis, London, xvi, 160 pp., 12 pis. 1900. Biologia centrali-americana. Reptilia and Batrachia. Porter and Dulau, London. Signatures 26-30, pp. 197-236, pis. 60-68. Harper, Francis. 1940. Some works of Bartram, Daudin, Latreille, and Sonnini, and their bearing upon North American herpetological nomenclature. Amer. Midi. Nat. 23(3) : 692-723, fig. 1. Kellogg, Remington. 1932. Mexican tailless amphibians in the United States National Museum. Bull. U.S. Nat. Mus. 160: i-iv, 1-224, figs. 1-24, pi. 1. Ledru, Andre-Pierre. 1810. Voyage aux iles de Teneriffe, la Trinite, Saint-

Thomas, Sainte-Croix et Porto-Ricco .. . Bertrand, Paris. 2 vols. Vol. 1: i-xlviii, 1-315; vol. 2; 1-325, map. Nieden, Fr. 1923. Anura I. Das Tierreich (Walter de Gruyter, Berlin), 46 : i- xxxii, 1-584, figs. 1-380. Schmidt, Karl Patterson. 1928. Amphibians and land reptiles of Porto Rico, with a list of those reported from the Virgin Islands. Ann. New York Acad. Sci. 10 : 1-160, figs. 1-52, pis. 1-4, index pp. 513-535. and Stuart, L. C. 1941. The herpetological fauna of the Salama Basin, Baja Verapaz, Guatemala. Zool. Ser. Field Mus. Nat. Hist. 24 : 233-247, figs. 21-22.

Original from and digitized by National University of Singapore Libraries Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 173

Smith, Hobart M. 1959. Herpetozoa from Guatemala, I. Herpetologica 15 : 210- 216. Sonnini, C. S., and Latreille, P. A. 1801. Histoire naturelle des reptiles, avec figures desinees d'apres nature. Deterville, Paris. Vol. 1, xx + 280 pp., 14 pis.; vol. 2, 332 pp., 21 pis., vol. 3, 335 pp., 6 pis.; vol. 4, 410 pp., 13 pis. Stejneger, Leonhard. 1904. The herpetology of Porto Rico. Am. Rept. U.S. Nat. Mus., 1902: 549-724, figs. 1-196, pi. 1. Stuart, L. C. 1963. A checklist of the herpetofauna of Guatemala, Misc. Publ. Mus. Zool. Univ. Michigan (122) : 1—150, map, frontis. Tschudi, J. J. 1839. Classification der Batrachier mit Berucksichtigung der fossilen Thiere. Mem. Soc. Sci. Nat. Neuchatel 2 : 1-100, pis. 1-6.

Original from and digitized by National University of Singapore Libraries 174 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

THE GENERIC NAMES FOR THE GIANT : PROPOSED SUPPRESSION OF PROTEOCORDYLUS EICHWALD, 1831 AND PALAEOTRITON FITZINGER, 1837. Z.N.(S.) 1751 (AMPHIBIA, CAUDATA) By Robert Mertens (Natur-Museum und Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Frankfurt am Main, Germany)

In the year 1837 Tschudi published two generic names within the group of giant salamanders: (a) Tschudi (1837 : 545), was based on specimens generally known as " Homo tristis diluvii testis "; type-species, by monotypy, Andrias scheuchzeri Tschudi, 1837 (= scheuchzeri Holl, 1831). (b) Megalobatrachus Tschudi (1837 : 547) was based on material of the recent Japanese giant : type-species, by monotypy, Megalo¬ batrachus sieboldi Tschudi, 1837 (= japonicus Temminck, 1837). (2) A third generic name within this group of salamanders is based on the recent species of North America: Cryptobranchus Leuckart (1821 : 260), type- species, by monotypy, Cryptobranchus salamandroides Leuckart, 1821 (= alle- ganiensis Daudin, 1802). (3) All these generic names are available names under the provisions of the code; their validity is a matter of taxonomy. Some authors (e.g. Bronn, 1838 : 1166; Thenius, 1954 : 174; Wahlert, 1965 : 35) recognize one genus only, Cryptobranchus; Thenius divides Cryptobranchus into subgenera Cryptobran¬ chus, Megalobatrachus and Andrias. Others regard Cryptobranchus as a separate genus, different from the palaearctic representatives: Megalobatrachus and Andrias. Under the name Andrias these are grouped within a single genus, again and in recent times by Westphal (1958). Relative priority is given in this case to Andrias, one of the contemporaneous names; this preference is based on an action by H. v. Meyer (1860 : 51) which is valid under the provisions of Article 24a. Still others distinguish three different genera as they feel uncertain about the identity of the fossil Andrias and the recent Megalobatrachus (of which all anatomical details, ecology and ethology, including reproduction, are known). (4) No action by the Commission is recommended as far as these three very well-known names, Andrias, Megalobatrachus and Cryptobranchus, are con¬ cerned. They are discussed here only for clarification of the nomenclatorical background and as the basis of related problems. (5) In 1831, Eichwald published a generic name, Proteocordylus; he (1831 : 165) attributes this name to Cuvier, but Cuvier never published it. This generic name is based on the nominal species Proteocordylus diluvii Eichwald, 1831, which by monotypy, is its type-species. P. diluvii is an objective synonym of Andrias scheuchzeri. Consequently, Proteocordylus proves to be a senior objective synonym of Andrias. There is no doubt that a revival of the long forgotten name Proteocordylus (for the last time it has been usedwas by Stejneger, 1907 : 3) is highly undesirable. As a " nomen oblitum " it should be suppressed by the Commission.

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 23, Part 4. October 1966.

Original from and digitized by National University of Singapore Libraries Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 175

(6) There is still another name which potentially could disturb established usage of Andrias, i.e. of the names discussed in paragraphs (1) to (4): Palaeotriton Fitzinger (1837 : 186). This name is based on the nominal species gigantea H. v. Meyer (1832 : 117), which is an objective synonym of scheuchzeri and a homonym of Salamandra gigantea Barton, 1808 (= Cryptobranchus alleganiensis Daudin, 1802). Both names, Andrias and Palaeotriton, were published within the same year; but it remains uncertain if Palaeotriton has been published earlier than September, 1837 (the date of Andrias). After its intro¬ duction into literature by the original author, Palaeotriton has never been used again as a valid name. So it seems an extreme of a " nomen oblitum " and consequently it is proposed that it should be suppressed, under its plenary powers, by the Commission. (7) In detail, the following actions by the Commission are recommended: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the following names: (a) Proteocordylus Eichwald, 1831; (b) Palaeotriton Fitzinger, 1837. (2) to place the following names, suppressed under the plenary powers under (1) above, on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Proteocordylus Eichwald, 1831, a senior objective synonym of Andrias Tschudi, 1837; (b) Palaeotriton Fitzinger, 1837, a contemporaneous name and an objective synonym of Andrias Tschudi, 1837.

References

Bronn, H. G. 1838. Lethaea geognostica. Stuttgart Eichwald, E. 1831. Zoologia specialis. Pars posterior. Wilna Fitzinger, L. J. 1837. Ober Palaeosaurus sternbergii, eine neue Gattung vorwelt- licher Reptilien und die Stellung dieser Thiere im Systeme tiberhaupt. Ann. wien. Mus. Naturgesch. 2 : 172-187, Taf. 11 Leuckart, S. 1821. Einiges fiber die fischartigen Amphibien. Isis (Oken), Litt. Anz. 1821 : 259-266, Taf. 5 Meyer, H. v. 1832. Palaeologica zur Geschichte der Erde und ihrer Geschopfe. Frankfurt a.M. 1860. Salamandrinen aus der Braunkohle am Rhein und Bohmen. Palaeonto- graphica, Stuttgart, 7 : 47-73, Taf. 8, 9, Fig. 1 Stejneger, L. 1907. Herpetology of Japan and adjacent territory. Bull. U.S. nat. Mus., Washington, 58 Thenius, E. 1954. Ober das Vorkommen von Riesensalamandern (Cryptobran- chidae, Amphibia) im Unterpliocan (Pannon) des Wiener Beckens. Palaont. Z., Stuttgart, 28 : 172-177, 1 Abb. Tschudi, J. J. v. 1837. Ober den Homo diluvii testis, Andrias Scheuchzeri. Neues Jb. Mineral., Geognos., Geol., Petref, Stuttgart, 1837 : 545-547 Wahlert, G. v. 1965. Molche und Salamander. Stuttgart (Franckh'sche Verlags- handlung) Westphal, F. 1958. Die tertiaren und rezenten eurasiatischen Riesensalamander (Genus Andrias, Urodela, Amphibia). Palaeontographica, Stuttgart, 110, A : 20-92, Taf. 3-9, 4 Abb.

Original from and digitized by National University of Singapore Libraries 176 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

PHELSUMA ORNATUMGRAY, 1825 (SAUR1A): PROPOSED ADDITION TO THE OFFICIAL INDEX OF REJECTED AND INVALID SPECIFIC NAMES IN ZOOLOGY. Z.N.(S.) 1752

By Robert Mertens (Natur-Museum unci Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Frankfurt am Main, Germany)

The name Phelsuma ornatum was first introduced into literature by J. E. Gray (1825 : 199). The original description reads as follows: " Brown, back orna¬ mented with six rows of red oval spots. Capt. King these few descriptive words seem to be totally insufficient, even for the time of their publication. Later on, the name ornatum (or the corrected form ornata) has been mentioned only two times by the original author: (a) in King's Report on his Voyage (1827 : 428) and (b) in Griffith's Kingdom (1831 : 48). Then, in his "Catalogue" (1845 : 166), Gray declared ornatum a synonym of Phelsuma cepedianus (Merrem 1820). Beginning from this time, i.e. for more than 120 years, ornatum (or, corrected, ornata) never has been mentioned as a valid name, but in monographical treatments only in the synonymy of Phelsuma cepediana or inunguis (Boulenger 1885 : 211; Loveridge 1942 : 448; Mertens 1962 : 92). (2) In recent times, Jean Vinson examined the type-specimen of Phelsuma ornatum in the collections of the British Museum (Nat. Hist.): he discovered that ornatum is not a synonym of cepediana (as established more than 120 years before by the original author) but a senior synonym of vinsoni Mertens (1963 : 353) as published in the combination Phelsuma vinsoni. (3) Phelsuma ornata is a forgotten name, based on a totally insufficient diagnosis that has remained completely unused in the literature for more than 120 years. This is much more than a " nomen oblitum " as it has been defined in relevant discussions of the last years. In contrast to this the name vinsoni in the meantime has been used by various authors (Honegger, Mertens, Vinson), and also in a monographical treatment (Mertens, 1966); here vinsoni is regarded as the valid name of a polytypical species. So I ask the International Commission to use its plenary powers in order to suppress ornatum for the purposes of Priority but not for Homonymy and place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology: ornatum J. E. Gray 1825, as published in the combination Phelsuma ornatum {Ann. Philos., 10 : 199).

References

Boulenger, G. A. 1885. Catalogue of the lizards in the British Museum (2) 1. London Gray, J. E. 1825. A synopsis of the genera of Reptiles and Amphibia, with a description of some new species. Ann. Philos., London, 10 : 193-217 1827. Reptilia. Appendix in: P. P. King, Narrative of a survey of the inter¬ tropical and western coasts of Australia, performed between the years 1818 and 1822 etc. 2. London 1831. A synopsis of the species of the class Reptilia in: Griffith, Animal Kingdom 9 : 1-110. London

Bull, zool. Nomencl., Vol. 23, Part 4. October 1966.

Original from and digitized by National University of Singapore Libraries Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 177

Gray, J. E. 1845. Catalogue of the specimens oflizards in the collection of the British Museum. London Loveridge, A. 1942. Revision of the Afro-Oriental Geckos of the genus Phelsuma. Bull. Mus. comp. Zool., Cambridge, Mass.: 89 : 439M82 Mertens, R. 1962. Die Arten und Unterarten der Geckonengattung Phelsuma. Senckenb. biol., Frankfurt a.M., 43 : 81-127, Taf. 7-10 1963. Zwei neue Arten der Geckonengattung Phelsuma. Senckenb. biol., Frankfurt a.M., 44 : 349-356, 2 Abb. 1966. Die nichtmadagassischen Arten und Unterarten der Geckonengattung Phelsuma. Senckenb. biol., Frankfurt a.M., 47 : 85-110, 2 Abb.

Original from and digitized by National University of Singapore Libraries 178 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

HIPPOCAMPUS ERECTUS PERRY (1810) (PISCES): PROPOSED SUPPRESSION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 1753 By Myvanwy M. Dick (Museum of Comparative Zoology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.)

The common seahorse of the Western Atlantic is listed under the name Hippocampus hudsonius De Kay, 1842, in virtually all the ichthyological litera¬ ture of the last one hundred years. For instance it is the name used in the following ten authorative works: 1. New York Fauna and Fishes, 1842, p. 322 2. History of the Fishes of Massachusetts. Storer, 1867, p. 222 3. Fishes of North and Middle America. Jordan and Evermann, 1896, Bull. U.S. nat. Mas. 47 (1) : 777 4. Catalogue of the Fishes of New York. T. Bean, 1903, Bull. Univ. of the State of N.Y.: 349-351. 5. Checklist of Fishes. Rep. U.S. Comm. Fish. 1928 (2) : 244 6. Review of the Seahorses. I. Ginsburg, 1937, Proc. U.S. nat. Mus. 83, No. 2997 : 551-560 7. The Pelagic fish eggs and larvae of Block Island Sound. Merriman, D. and R. C. Sclar, Bull. Bingham oceanogr. Coll. 13, 1952 : 180 8. Sound Production. Marie Fish, Copeia 1953 : 98-99 9. Fishes of the Gulf of Maine. Bigelow and Schroeder, 1953, Fish. Bull. Fish and Wildlife Service 53 : 315-316 10. Guide to Marine Fishes. Perlmutter, 1961 : 340-341. Recently it has been suggested by Dr. James Bohlke of the Philadelphia Academy of Science that the name Hippocampus erectus Perry be revived, a name not used in the primary zoological literature in the preceding period of well over one hundred years. The description given by Perry is so vague and indeterminate that it is applicable to almost any species of seahorse. It contains no counts of meristic characters nor statements on proportions which are the chief diagnostic characters in the genus Hippocampus. The plate is an imagin¬ ary drawing which again does not contain any diagnostic features. There is no known type specimen. It must be considered an unidentifiable nomen dubium. In order that the stability of nomenclature in the genus Hippocampus not be disturbed I herewith request the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the specific name erectus Perry (1810) (Arcana; or the Museum ofNatural History: pi. 1, Dec. 1810), as published in the binomen Hippocampus erectus, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy; (2) to place the specific name suppressed in (1) above on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology; (3) to place the specific name hudsonius De Kay, 1842 (Zoology of New York, Pt. 4, Fishes : 322, pi. 53, fig. 171), as published in the binomen Hippocampus hudsonius, on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology.

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 23, Part 4. October 1966.

Original from and digitized by National University of Singapore Libraries Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 179

TECTARIUS (MOLLUSCA: GASTROPODA) : REQUEST FOR VALIDATION IN ITS ACCUSTOMED SENSE. Z.N.(S.) 1754 A. Myra Keen (Department of Geology, Stanford University, California 94305, U.S.A.)

While revising the family Littorinidae for the " Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology I was obliged to conclude that the name Tectarius, as commonly applied to a taenioglossate group of prosobranch gastropods, is nomenclaturally invalid. The proposal of Tectarius is credited to Valenciennes, 1832 (" 1833 ") (" Voy. Inter. Amer. [Humboldt & Bonpland], Obs. Zool. II, 271 ", as cited by Sherborn and by Neave), although authors are not in agreement as to the type- species. The name was actually published in the report on a Voyage to the Americas by Humboldt and Bonpland. Clarification is required both for the status of the name and for the interpretation of the type-species. The proposal is in French, not Latin. One might translate pertinent passages as follows: TECTAIRE The genus Monodonta has been divided off by Lamarck from Trochus Linne but without separating this new genus, the Tectaires of Denis Mont- fort. Lamarck thought that the form of the shells places them near Trochus, with which he had united them previously. But Cuvier thinks otherwise; in dissecting the animal of Monodonta he has found that this gastropod is

similar to Turbo. .. . This illustrious anatomist however keeps the genus Tectaire of Denis Montfort as a division of Trochus. Blainville is of the same opinion. I shall follow the procedure recommended by these two famous zoologists; and as the shell collected by Humboldt and Bonpland is similar to Trochus tectum-persicum of Linne, I am describing it as a new species of the genus Tectaire. " Tectaire couronne

" Tectarius coronatus. ..." [Here follows a formal specific description.] When one examines the " Tectaire " of Montfort (1810, Conch. Syst. 2 : 186- 187) one finds that the latinized form was spelled Tectus. The type-species of Tectus, by original designation, is T. pagodalis Montfort, figured on his page 186. This figure is recognizable as Trochus mauritianus Gmelin, 1791. The Tectus of Montfort is currently accepted as a genus in the rhipidoglossate family Trochidae, a division of Archaeogastropoda, whereas the Littorinidae are in Mesogastropoda. Tectus has nacreous shell material; Tectarius of authors does not, its shell material being porcelaneous. The manner in which Valenciennes introduced the name Tectarius makes it an incorrect subsequent spelling of Tectus, for he merely latinized the vernacular " Tectaire " of Montfort in a different way. His intention to use Montfort's genus is obvious, and he nowhere gives indication that he wished to propose a new generic taxon. As a spelling error, then, Tectarius under Article 33 (b) of the Code has no status in nomenclature. Even if interpreted as an emendation [Art. 33 (a) (ii)], it would fall as a junior objective synonym.

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 23, Part 4 October 1966.

Original from and digitized by National University of Singapore Libraries 180 Bulletin ofZoological Nomenclature

As to the interpretation of the type-species of the Tectarius of authors: Clench and Abbott in 1942 (Johnsonia 1 (4) : 1) were first to cite one of the two included specific names as type-species. They selected T. coronatus. However, this form has never been figured. Some authors have interpreted it as T. pago- dus (Linne, 1758). Others have cited the name but not attempted a synonymy. Through the courtesy of Dr. Edouard Fischer-Piette, I have obtained a photo¬ graph of Valenciennes' type specimen, which is in the Museum national d'His- toire naturelle de Paris. The form is easily recognizable as the one commonly called " Trochus bullatus Martyn 1784 " (a name published in a work rejected by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in Opinion 456); the earliest available name for this specific taxon seems to be Trochus grandinatus Gmelin, 1791. Junior synonyms are available that could replace Tectarius and that would stand in the way of disregarding Tectarius Valenciennes as a spelling error and dating it from its subsequent validation by a later author, such as Fischer, 1885. These are: Echinella Swainson, 1840 (Treatise Malac.: 221), type-species by subsequent designation of Herrmannsen, 1847, Monodonta coronaria Lamarck, 1816 [not preoccupied by Echinella Bory St. Vincent, 1824, a diatom], plus Echinellopsis Rovereto, 1899, pro Echinella as a supposed homonym; Pagodus Gray, 1839, and Pagodella Swainson, 1840, both based on Turbo pagodus Linne, 1758. None of these available names has been used for the group Tectarius of authors in the major zoological literature. On the contrary, Tectarius has had wide currency, the several species that have been assigned to it being distributed in the East and West Pacific and in the Caribbean. Therefore, in the interests of stability of nomenclature, the Commission asked, (1) Under the plenary powers to declare that Tectarius Valenciennes, 1832,1 is to be considered a new name, although it was actually an incorrect spelling for Tectus Montfort, 1810; (2) to place the generic name Tectarius Valenciennes, 1832 (gender : mascu¬ line), type-species by designation by Clench & Abbott, 1942, Tec¬ tarius coronatus Valenciennes, 1832, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology; (3) to place the specific name grandinatus Gmelin, 1791, as published in the binomen Trochus grandinatus, on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology.

1 The title page of the Humboldt and Bonpland work is dated 1833, and this date has been accepted by some authors; however, according to Hertlein and Strong (1955), the publication was noticed by Ducles in May 1832 in the Annates des Sciences Naturelle, Paris, vol. 21, p. 110.

Original from and digitized by National University of Singapore Libraries Bulletin ofZoological Nomenclature 181

HIPPELLA MOERCH (MOLLUSCA: PELECYPODA): REQUEST FOR SUPPRESSION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 1755 A. Myra Keen (Department of Geology, Stanford University, California 94305, U.S.A.)

In 1859-61 O. A. L. Moerch published a report on a collection of mollusks from the west coast of Central America (Malakozoologische Blatter 6 : 102-26; 7 : 66-106, 170-213), describing, without illustrations, a number of new species and one new genus. All type specimens were deposited in the Museum of the University of Copenhagen. The new genus was named Hippella (p. 199, Jan. 1861), the type-species of which was H. hippopus, sp. nov. (monotypy), type locality, Puntarenas, Costa Rica. Other authors seem not to have studied the type material of Hippella, although search was made for it some years ago, it was not recovered until recently and the name has generally been ignored. Moerch interpolated Hippella between Crassatella and Kellia in his list but did not assign it to a family. He compared it with Chama, Hippopus, and Plicatula, genera not closely related to each other and that have in common only a triangular form and widely spaced strong ribs. He also mentioned Verti- cordia Sowerby, 1844, but only to say that Hippella was not related to this genus, and he did not mention the brilliantly nacreous interior that is the hall¬ mark of Verticordia. The first subsequent author to attempt identification of the genus was Dall, in 1903 {Trans. Wagner Free Inst. Sci. 3 (6) : 1509, 1513), who erroneously recorded the name of the type-species as " H. hippagus," and who arbitrarily placed Hippella in the synonymy of Verticordia. So far as I can find, the name has been cited only once since, by Thiele, 1934 (Handbuch Weichtier- kunde: 944), who followed Dall's lead in synonymizing it. Because of Moerch's disclaimer of this relationship and because of other discrepancies between Moerch's description and the morphology of Verticordia—such as the structure of the hinge and the relative spacing of the ribs—I have had increasing doubts as to the correctness of this conclusion. Looking through a recently-published manual of bivalves from this general area (Olsson, 1961: Panama-Pacific Pelecypoda, Paleontological Research Institution: 191, pi. 77, fig. 4) I found a figure and description that matched, point for point, the characteristics Moerch had enumerated for Hippella: number of ribs (9); sculpture (granular), size (2 mm. in diameter); hinge details (presence of cardinal teeth); and—most importantly—the presence of a laminar ridge bounding the juvenile part of the shell. Until Olsson's figures became available, Moerch's description could not properly be understood. The timely recovery of Moerch's types now reinforces this identification, for Olsson's figure of a Panama specimen could have been made from one of Moerch's syntypes. Olsson's species was described from a Pleistocene fossil in 1942 as Condy- locardia panamensis {Bulletins of American Paleontology 27 (105) : 186, pi. 3, fig. 9). In his 1961 work, he refigured the species and recorded it also as living in Panama. Moerch's record thus would be a slight extension of geographic range northward. The genus Condylocardia to which Olsson assigned his

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 23, Part 4. October 1966.

Original from and digitized by National University of Singapore Libraries 182 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature species was described by Bernard in 1896 (Bull. Mus. Hist. Nat. Paris 2 :193), type-species (subsequent designation, Bernard, 1897), C. sancti-pauli, from St. Paul Island in the southern Indian Ocean. This genus was known to Dall in 1903, but as at that time no American representatives were known, he, under¬ standably, did not connect it with Hippella. The generic name Hippella qualifies as a nomen oblitum because it has not been used in the major zoological literature and it has been a senior synonym for more than 50 years. Condylocardia is the type of the family-group condylo- cardiidae Bernard, 1896, a family currently placed in the Carditacea. There are now two known species of Condylocardia on the West Central American coast, two or more in the Tertiary and Recent of the Western Atlantic, about six in the southern hemisphere (islands of the South Pacific and southern Indian Ocean), and at least one from the Eocene of the Paris Basin, France. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is therefore asked, in the interests of stability of nomenclature: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the generic name Hippella Moerch, 1861, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Priority; (2) to place the generic name Condylocardia Bernard, 1896 (gender : femi¬ nine), type-species by designation by Bernard, 1897, Condylocardia sanctipauli Bernard, 1896, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology; (3) to place the following specific names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) sanctipauli Bernard, 1896, as published in the binomen Condylo¬ cardia sanctipauli (type-species of Condylocardia Bernard, 1896); (b) hippopus Moerch, 1861, as published in the binomen Hippella hippopus; (4) to place the family-group name condylocardiidae Bernard, 1896, (correction of condylocardides) (type-genus Condylocardia Bernard, 1896) on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology; (5) to place the generic name Hippella Moerch, 1861, as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above, on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology.

Original from and digitized by National University of Singapore Libraries Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 183

PLANULINA DUMBLEI (APPLIN, 1925) (FORAMINIFERA): PROPOSED SUPPRESSION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS IN FAVOUR OF PLANULINA TAYLORENSIS (CARSEY, 1926). Z.N.(S.) 1756 By J. D. McLean, Jr. (Alexandria, Virginia, U.S.A.)

In consideration of the nearly universal usage of the name Planulina taylor- ensis (Carsey) in the literature as opposed to Planulina dumblei (Applin), it is herewith petitioned that Planulina dumblei (Applin) be suppressed under the plenary powers. The species in question is a recognized marker or guide species for designating certain geological age units, and, as such, it will create undue confusion and hardship on those who refer to it if the usage-name is replaced by P. dumblei, its senior synonym. In addition to the above major reason, the following additional details may be considered: 1. Prior to publication of the description of Truncatulina dumblei by Applin (in Applin, Ellisor, and Kniker, 1925, pp. 86-88, 99), Dumble and Applin (1924, p. 342) published a reference to the species Truncatulina taylorensis, indicating that the name had, for them and others, full validity. 2. Applin, in discussing Truncatulina dumblei in the article wherein she described and named the species, clearly indicated it to be a variant of A. taylorensis, whose sole reason for definition was in her belief, stated in the remarks, that the form could not have been reworked from beds as insisted upon by one co-author. The sole morphological character that she could give for discrimination of the supposed form from its Cretaceous equivalent, was a slight rounding of the apertural face. 3. It was subsequently established that the form is, in fact, reworked from the Cretaceous, and is so conceded by Applin. This not only removes the major reason for description as T. dumblei, but it also establishes the fact that the " type " of T. dumblei came from material unsuitable for description as a type locality, since its occurrence is entirely haphazard and out of normal position. 4. From her remarks and descriptive work, Applin clearly never challenged the prior existence of A. taylorensis as a valid and acceptable species: at best T. dumblei Applin must be regarded as a variant of A. taylorensis, and it should be relegated to the status of an unusable synonym erected on unsupportable premise as to occurrence, instead of true morphological variation. 5. At the time of description of T. dumblei, and the delay in formal descrip¬ tion of A. taylorensis, the rigid and formalized descriptive requirements of the Commission on Zoological Nomenclature were imperfectly known to the pioneers in the Gulf area, and formal publication was considered a side issue to the work of actually establishing the faunal sequences of Foraminifera throughout the geological column of the region. For this reason, a large body of " established " species owed their definition to interchange of information between working laboratories. The well-established journals of today were then just beginning to come into existence, and publication of formal descriptions

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 23, Part 4. October 1966.

Original from and digitized by National University of Singapore Libraries 184 Bulletin ofZoological Nomenclature was a matter of expediency and opportunity, in contradiction to modern practice and opportunity. 6. Of the 28 references listed, the term Anomalina taylorensis appears nine times, the termPlanulina taylorensis occurs seventeen times, and the term Planulina dumblei occurs twice. Since Anomalina taylorensis and Planulina taylorensis are practically the same name, and differ only in generic decision by individual authors, this means that 26 out of 28 times the term taylorensis predominates over dumblei. It may be stated that these represent only the available references so far gathered. The final analysis would probably indicate that Planulina taylorensis as a term predominates even more heavily over Planulina dumblei than would be suspected from the above list. 7. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is therefore requested: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the specific name dumblei Applin, 1925, as published in the binomen Truncatulina dumblei, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy; (2) to place the specific name taylorensis Carsey, 1926, as published in the binomen Anomalina taylorensis, on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology; (3) to place the specific name dumblei Applin, 1925, as published in the binomen Truncatulina dumblei (as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above) on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology.

References Applin, E. R., Kniker, H. T., & Ellisor, A. C. 1925. Subsurface Stratigraphy of the Coastal Plains of Texas and Louisiana, A.A.P.G. Bull. 9 : 79-122 Burma, B. H., undated. Gulf Coast Guide , Chart p. 5, privately printed Carsey, D. O. 1926. Foraminifera of the Cretaceous of Central Texas. Univ. Texas Bull. No. 2612: 1-53 Cole, W. Storrs. 1938. Stratigraphy and Micropaleontology of Two Deep Wells in Florida, Florida Geol. Survey Bull. 16 : 7-73, 12 pis., 3 figs. Cushman, J. A. 1931. The Foraminifera of the Saratoga Chalk. J. Paleont. 5(4) : 297-315 1931. A Preliminary Report on the Foraminifera of Tennessee. Tennessee Division of Geology, Bull. 41 : 1-62 1932. The Foraminifera of the Annona Chalk. J. Paleont. 6(4) : 330-345. 1940. American Upper Cretaceous Foraminifera of the Family Anomalinidae. Contr. Cushman Foram. Res. 16(2) : 27-40 1946. Upper Cretaceous Foraminifera of the Gulf Coastal Region of the United States and Adjacent Areas. U.S. Geological Surv. Prof. Paper 206 : 1-241 1948. Foraminifera, Hammond Well. Maryland Board Nat. Res., Dept. Geol., Mines and Water Resources, Bull. 2: 213-267 —— & Deaderick, W. H., 1942. Cretaceous Foraminifera from the Brownstown Marl of Arkansas. Contr. Cushman Lab. Foram. Res. 18(3) : 50, 66 & Deaderick, W. H., 1944. Cretaceous Foraminifera from the Marlbrook Marl of Arkansas. J. Paleont. 18(4) : 328,341 Dumble, E. T. & Applin, E. R., 1924. Sub-Surface Geology of Idolo Island, Vera Cruz, Mexico. Pan-American Geologist 41 : 335-346

Original from and digitized by National University of Singapore Libraries Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 185

Easton, H. D. 1939. Producing Zones On and Around the Sabine Uplift. Nat. Oil Scouts Assoc. of Amer. Yearbook 9, Chart: 114 Etter, John. 1961. Paleontological Zonation of the Texas Gulf Coast, Chart, Sinclair Paleont. Lab. (Texas) Frizzell, D. L. 1954. Handbook of Cretaceous Foraminifera of Texas, Bur. of Econ. Geol., Univ. Texas, No. 22, pp. 1-230 Loetterle, G. J. 1937. The Micropaleontology of the Niobrara Formation in Kansas, Nebraska and South Dakota. Nebraska Geol. Surv. Bull. 12, Sec. Series McLean, J. D., Jr. 1953. A Summary of the Guide Fossil Foraminifera of the Atlantic Coastal Plains Between New Jersey and Georgia. A Revision. Reps. McLean Foram. Lab. No. 1, Chart, p. 11 1957. A Cretaceous Foraminifera Fauna from the Banks of the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal. Reps. McLean. Paleont. Lab. No. 3 : 13, 21 1960. Stratigraphy of the Parris Island Area, South Carolina. Reps. McLean Paleont. Lab. No. 4, Chart, p. 20 (Editor) 1966. Manual of Micropaleontological Stratigraphy. 5, Planulina taylorensis Zone: 1-22 National Oil Scouts and Landmen's Assoc. Yearbook, 1944, 14 : 28 Nunnally, Jeff Dorris, & Fowler, Henry Florey. 1955. Lower Cretaceous Stratigraphy of Mississippi. Trans. G.C.A.G.S. 5 : 212-213 Plummer, H. J. 1931. Some Cretaceous Foraminifera in Texas. Univ. Texas Bull. No. 3101: 107-239 and plates Sandidge, J. R. 1932. Foraminifera from the Ripley Formation of Western Ala¬ bama. J. Paleont. 6(3) : 265-287 Shearer, H. J., & Hutson, E. B. 1930. The Dixie Oil Pool, Caddo Parish, La. A.A.P.G. 14(6) : 743-763 Thomas, J. L., & Rice, E. M. 1931. Notes on the Saratoga Chalk. J. Paleont 5(4) : 316-328 Vanderpool, H. C. 1930. Cretaceous Section of Maverick County, Texas. J. Paleont. 4(3) : 252-262

SUPPORT FOR THE SUPPRESSION OF TRUNCATULINA DUMBLEI APPLIN [The following letter was addressed to Dr. J. D. McLean, Jr., by Mrs. Esther R. Applin]: I am completely in accord with your efforts relating to the suppression of the name Planulina dumblei (Applin) in favor of the Planulina taylorensis (Carsey). As I have stated many times, when I described P. dumblei I recognized its close similarity to the fossil at that time commonly referred to as Anomalina taylorensis, a then undescribed, but already well known characterizing fossil of the Taylor (Cam- panian) Group of Texas. However, because of the perfection of its preservation, a marked difference in the character of the shell structure, and other details given in the data presented with your petition, I felt justified, at the time, in giving a new name to the varietal form I described. I was pleased when Mrs. Carsey published her description ofAnomalina taylorensis, thus, as I believed, authenticating the name already in common use for the Taylor (Cretaceous) species. The whereabouts of the type of the variety I described, and of the materials from which it was selected, are now unknown. I am most grateful for your assistance in this matter and trust that your petition will be favorably received.

Original from and digitized by National University of Singapore Libraries 186 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

GRACILARIA HAWORTH, 1828 (1NSECTA, LEPIDOPTERA): PROPOSED ADDITION TO THE OFFICIAL LTST OF GENERIC NAMES. Z.N.(S.) 1757 By Elwood C. Zimmerman {Bishop Museum, Honolulu) and N. D. Riley {British Museum {Natural History), London)

The purpose of this application is to ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to place on the Official List the names Gracilaria (Haworth, 1828) Zeller, 1839, emendation, and gracilariidae Stainton, 1854, and to place on the Official Index the generic spelling Gracillaria and its deriva¬ tive gracillariidae. The facts are as follows: 1. Haworth (1828: 527) proposed the generic name Gracillaria, but in so doing he misspelled the word which is derived from the Latin gracilis. He should have used a single " 1 "—Gracilaria. 2. Zeller (1839: 208) emended the spelling, without specifically stating that he was so doing, to Gracilaria which is classically correct and was a justified emendation (Art. 33a (i)). Such an emendation comes within the accepted rules of the Code (Articles 32 and 33). The spelling Gracilaria was accepted by the Oxford and Cambridge University experts who assembled " An Accentuated List of the British Lepidoptera with Hints on the Derivation of the Names 1858, by Edward Meyrick, who was a teacher of classics, and by numerous other authors. 3. Considerable confusion exists in literature because of the variant spellings of this generic and family-group name. Therefore, in the interest of stability, the Commission is asked: (1) to place the generic name Gracilaria (emend, of Gracillaria) Haworth, 1828 (gender : feminine), type-species, by designation by Curtis, 1833, Gracillaria anastomosis Haworth, 1828, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. (2) to place the specific name syringella Fabricius, 1794, as published in the binomen Tinea syringella, on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. [A senior subjective synonym of Gracillaria anastomosis Haworth, 1828]; (3) to place the family-group name gracilariidae Stainton, 1854 (type-genus Gracilaria Haworth, 1828) on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology; (4) to place the generic name Gracillaria Haworth, 1828 (an incorrect original spelling for Gracilaria) on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology; (5) to place the family-group name gracillariidae Morris, 1870 (type- genus Gracilaria Haworth, 1828) (an incorrect spelling for gracila¬ riidae Stainton, 1854) on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology.

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 23, Part 4. October 1966.

Original from and digitized by National University of Singapore Libraries Bulletin ofZoological Nomenclature 187

References Anonymous. 1858. An Accentuated List of the British Lepidoptera with Hints on the Derivation ofNames, pp. i-xliv, 1-118. Entomological Societies of Oxford and Cambridge. John Van Voorst, London Curtis. 1833. Brit. Ent. 10 : pi. 479 Fabricius. 1794. Ent. syst. 3(2) : 328 Haworth. 1828. Lep. Brit. 4 : 527 Morris. 1870. Nat. Hist. Brit. Butt. Moths 4 : 153 Stainton. 1854a. Ins. Brit., Lep. Tin. : 193 1854b. List. Brit. Anim. B.M. (16) : 116 Zeller. 1839. Isis (Oken) 1839 : 209

Original from and digitized by National University of Singapore Libraries 188 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

NEOLYCAENA DeNICEVlLLE, 1890 (INSECTA, LEPIDOPTERA, LYCAENIDAE): PROPOSED DESIGNATION OF A TYPE-SPECIES UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 1758 By Lieut.Col. C. F. Cowan (Berkhamsted, Herts., England) DeNiceville described in detail the new genus Neolycaena, concluding " Type Lycaena sinensis Alpheraky." (Butterflies of India, Burmah & Ceylon 3 : 64, 1890). On the following page he discussed the species Neolycaena sinensis by giving a translation of the whole of Alpheraky's description. He then added:

" My knowledge of this species is confined to a single specimen taken by Lieutenant E. Y. Watson on 21 June 1885 at Gunduk, which is situated in the Sarakola Pass, to the N.E. of Quetta, Biluchistan. Half of this specimen has been bleached for examination of the neuration. The figure (I.e., pi. 26, fig. 166) shows both sides of this specimen, which is in my own collection." This half-specimen, a female with damaged abdomen, survives in the British Museum (Nat. Hist.) collection, together with a further sixteen also taken in the mountains near Quetta by Evans, who pointed out that it is abun¬ dantly distinct from sinensis (see J. Bombay nat. Hist. Soc. 36 : 207, No. 92; 1932), and had just named it Neolycaena connae (Identification of Indian Butter¬ flies: 247; 1932). The male holotype of connae Evans is in the type collection at the British Museum (Nat. Hist.). It is clear that connae Evans was the species which deNiceville had before him when introducing Neolycaena. It is arguable, however, that his subsequent full quotation of the original description validates his positive nomination of sinensis as the type-species. (The type-locality of sinensis Alpheraky 1881, Hor. ent. Ross. 16 : 383, pi. 14, fig. 7, is Koulja, Sinkiang, 1200 miles from Quetta). No recent publications can be found on this small genus, to provide a basis on which to stabilise nomenclature, but a decision on the fixation of the type- species is desirable in order to avoid future uncertainty. No other generic name is applicable to either species. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is therefore, in accordance with Article 70(a) of the Rules of Nomenclature, requested either (1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all designations of type-species for the genus Neolycaena deNiceville, 1890, made prior to the ruling now proposed and, having done so, to designate as the type-species of that genus the species Neolycaena connae Evans, 1932; (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, the generic name Neolycaena deNiceville, 1890, Butterflies of India, Burmah & Ceylon 3 : 64 (gender : feminine), type-species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Neolycaena connae Evans, 1932, Identification of Indian Butterflies: 247; (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology, the specific name connae Evans, 1932, as published in the binomen Neolycaena connae (type-species of Neolycaena deNiceville, 1890);

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 23, Part 4. October 1966.

Original from and digitized by National University of Singapore Libraries Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 189

(1) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the generic name Neolycaena deNiceville, 1890, Butterflies of India, Burmah & Ceylon 3 : 64 (gender : feminine), type-species, by original designation, Lycaena sinensis Alpheraky, 1881, Hor. ent. Ross. 16 : 383; (2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the specific name sinensis Alpheraky, 1881, as published in the binomen Lycaena sinensis (type-species of Neolycaena deNiceville, 1890).

Original from and digitized by National University of Singapore Libraries 190 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

ANOPHELES ERRABUNDUS (SWELLENGREBEL, 1925) (INSECTA, DIPTERA); PROPOSED SUPPRESSION AS A SPECIFIC NAME UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 1760 By J. A. Reid (cjo Department ofEntomology, British Museum {Natural History), London) and J. Bonne-Wepster {Adviser on Medical Entomology, Institute for Tropical Hygiene, Amsterdam) Swellengrebel {Ned. Tijdschr. Geneesk. 69 : 1913, 1925), under the name Cellia errabunda, described a new species of Anopheles based on four females said to have been captured in South-East Borneo. He pointed out the very close resemblance of the specimens to the South American species Anopheles argyritarsis, and named the new species errabunda, or vagrant, because it seemed to have wandered far from home. 2. Edwards {Gen. Insect. 194, 1932) and Christophers {Faun. Brit. India. Diptera 4, Anophelini, 1933), who do not appear to have seen any of the speci¬ mens, treated errabundus as a possible synonym of Anopheles philippinensis, a common Oriental species which errabundus superficially resembles. 3. No further specimens of errabundus have been collected in Borneo or anywhere else in the Oriental region, and later workers have followed Edwards and Christophers in treating it as close to philippinensis, e.g. Gater {Aids to the identification of anopheline imagines in Malaya, Singapore, 1935), and Bonne- Wepster and Swellengrebel {The anopheline mosquitoes of the Indo-Australian region, Amsterdam, 1953). 4. Examination of Swellengrebel's four specimens of errabundus shows that they are not related to philippinensis; for example they possess well marked propleural setae which are always lacking in philippinensis and other species of the Neocellia series of subgenus Cellia. 5. In our opinion all four specimens belong to the purely South American subgenus Nyssorhynchus and to the species known as Anopheles darlingi Root, 1926, which is an important vector of malaria and which resembles argyritarsis as Swellengrebel pointed out. Doctors M. T. Gillies, P. F. Mattingly and Alan Stone, who have kindly examined one or more of the specimens, agree that errabundus is the same as darlingi, of which it is therefore a senior synonym. 6. Evidently the specimens were not collected in Borneo, but our enquiries suggest that they were accidentally mixed with a collection of mosquitoes received from Borneo. 7. In view of the importance of the name darlingi in public health, and to avoid confusion and maintain stability, application is made to the Commission on Zoological Nomenclature: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the specific name errabunda Swellengrebel, 1925, as used in the binomen Cellia errabundus for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy; (2) to place the name suppressed in (1) above on the Official Index of Reject¬ ed and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology.

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 23, Part 4. October 1966.

Original from and digitized by National University of Singapore Libraries Bulletin ofZoological Nomenclature 191

ENITHARES SPINOLA, 1837 (INSECTA, HEMIPTERA): PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO DESIGNATE A TYPE-SPECIES. Z.N.(S.) 1762 By I. Lansbury (Hope Department of Entomology, University Museum, Oxford, England)

Spinola in 1837 (Essai sur les Genres ddnsectes, appurtenants a Torder des Hemipteres, Lin. Genes: 60) proposed the genus Enithares and included two species, indica Fabricius, 1803, from " De Bombay, envoyee par M. Dupont" and a new species E. brasiliensis from " Du Bresil, envoyee par M. Buquet 2. Kirkaldy in 1897 {Trans, ent. Soc. Lond. 1897 : 393) designated, by a footnote, the type-species of Enithares Spinola, 1837, in the following phrase " I am not aware that any author has indicated a type for this genus, and therefore now set apart E. indica for that purpose Kirkaldy in the same page in the main text made a lapsus calami in referring to Spinola's indica as N. indica Linnaeus, whereas Spinola, 1837, clearly states his indica is that of Fabricius, 1803. 3. I have examined the male holotype of N. indica Fabricius, 1803 {Syst. Rhyngotorum: 102) from Sumatra, Dom Daldorff, preserved in the Universi- tetets Zoologiske Museum, Kobenhvn. Tt is an earlier name for Enithares intricata Breddin, 1905. However, the Fabrician name is preoccupied by Notonecta indica Linnaeus, 1771 {Mantissa Plantarum: 534) and therefore Enithares intricata must continue to be used as the next available name. It has been found after studying extensive collections of Enithares that E. intricata is distributionally limited to Sumatra and Java; it is therefore clear that Spinola (para. 1) was in error in referring to the Bombay specimen as N. indica Fabri¬ cius, 1803. 4. Fabricius in 1798 {Suppl. Ent. syst.: 524-525) described Notonecta ciliata from Indiae aquis, Dom Daldorff. Fieber in 1852 {Rozpr. mat. -pfir. K. ceske Spol. Nauk (5)7 : 470-472) over-looked this species and Kirkaldy in 1904 {Wien. ent. Ztg. 23 : 95-110, 113) erroneously included it in the genus Anisops Spinola, 1837. Lundblad in 1933 {Arch. Hydrobiol. Suppl. 12 : 148) pointed out that N. ciliata was an Enithares. I have examined the holotype female of N. ciliata which is preserved in the Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Kobenhvn. The specimen is very badly damaged, all that remains is the thorax with the median and one hind leg and the elytra. There are however, sufficient diagnostic features left, i.e. metaxyphus and nodal furrow, to show that N. ciliata is an earlier name for Notonecta abbreviata Kirby (1891, J. Linn. Soc. (Zool.) 24 : 126). 5. Kirkaldy in 1900 {Entomologist 33 : 10) considered that as N. indica Fabricius, 1803, was preoccupied by N. indica Linnaeus, 1771, that the former should take the next available name which Kirkaldy thought was N. abbreviata. As has previously been mentioned, N. indica F. = E. intricata Breddin is confined to Sumatra and Java. N. abbreviata = N. ciliata is a widespread

Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 23, Part 4. October 1966.

Original from and digitized by National University of Singapore Libraries 192 Bulletin ofZoological Nomenclature

Indian and South East Asian species. I have compared the holotype of N. ciliata with the type of N. abbreviata preserved in the British Museum (Natural History) and find them conspecific; comparison of the holotype of N. indica Fabricius with N. ciliata Fabricius and N. abbreviata Kirby shows that N. indica is clearly distinct. 6. It is considered that N. indica Fabricius sensu Spinola 1837, is a mis- identification. Of the five species of Enithares recorded from India three, E. triangularis (Guerin Meneville), E. hungerfordi Brooks and E. fusca Brooks are all confined to Southern India, that is south of Madras; the fourth E. lineatipes Horvath is restricted to the Punjab, Baluchistan etc., only N. ciliata is common and widespread. 7. With the facts set out in para. 6, it is quite clear that Kirkaldy (1897) unwittingly based his type-species designation for Enithares (para. 2) on a misidentification of Spinola (para. 1). 8. Since no change of generic name is involved in the determination of the type-species of the genus I ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature: (1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all designations of type-species for the nominal genus Enithares Spinola, 1837, made prior to the Ruling now requested and, having done so, to designate Notonecta ciliata Fabricius, 1798, as type-species of that genus; (2) to place the generic name Enithares Spinola, 1837 (gender : feminine), type-species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Notonecta ciliata Fabricius, 1798, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology; (3) to place the specific name ciliata Fabricius, 1798, as published in the binomen Notonecta ciliata (type-species of Enithares Spinola, 1837) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology.

Original from and digitized by National University of Singapore Libraries INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

A. The Members of the Trust The Rt. Hon. The Lord Hurcomb, G.C.B., K.B.E. (Chairman) Francis J. Griffin, O.B.E., F.C.C.S., A.L.A. (Secretary and Managing Director) Mr. N. D. Riley, C.B.E. Prof. Dr. R. Sparck Dr. N. R. Stoll Mr. C. W. Wright Dr. G. F. de Witte

B. The Officers of the Trust W. E. China, C.B.E., Sc.D. (Scientific Controller) Margaret Doyle, B.Sc. (Scientific Assistant)

CONTENTS

(■continuedfrom front wrapper)

New Cases Page

Cosmopterix Hubner, 1825 (Insecta, Lepidoptera): Proposed designation of a

type-species under the plenary powers (Ronald W. Hodges) .. .. 155 Chromis aureus Steindachner, 1864 (Pisces): Proposed addition to the Official List of Specific Names (E. Trewavas) ...... 157 Otolithus aureus Richardson, 1846 (Pisces): Proposed addition to the Official

List of Specific Names (E. Trewavas) ...... 158 Macrochoeta Macquart, 1851 (Insecta, Diptera): Proposed suppression under the plenary powers (A. C. Pont) ...... 160 Amphisbaena mildei Peters, 1878 (Reptilia): Proposed suppression under the

plenary powers (Carl Gans) ...... 162 stenopodinae in Insecta and stenopodidae in Crustacea: Proposed use of the

plenary powers to remove the homonymy (W. E. China) .. .. 164 Scoptes Hubner, [1819] v. Capys Hewitson, 1864 (Insecta, Lepidoptera): A case of a forgotten name (N. D. Riley) 165 Cornufer unicolor Tschudi, 1838 (Amphibia): Request for suppression under the plenary powers (Richard G. Zweifel) 167 Rana maculata Daudin, 1801 (Amphibia): Proposed suppression under plenary

powers (Hobart M. Smith, John D. Lynch and Robert W. Reese) .. 169 The generic names for the Giant Salamanders: Proposed suppression of Proteocordylus Eichwald, 1831 and Palaeotriton Fitzinger, 1837 (Amphibia) (Robert Mertens) 174 Phelsitma ornatum Gray, 1825 (Sauria): Proposed addition to the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology (Robert

Mertens) ...... 175 Hippocampus erectus Perry, (1810) (Pisces): Proposed suppression under the plenary powers (Myvanwy M. Dick) 178 Tectarius (Gastropoda): Request for validation in its accustomed sense (A. Myra Keen) 179 Hippella Moerch (Pelecypoda): Request for suppression under the plenary powers (A. Myra Keen) 181 Planulina dumblei (Applin, 1925) (Foraminifera): Proposed suppression in

favour of Planulina taylorensis (Carsey, 1926) (J. D. McLean, Jr.) .. 183

Original from and digitized by National University of Singapore Libraries CONTENTS

(continuedfrom inside back wrapper) Page

Gracilaria Haworth, 1828 (Insecta, Lepidoptera): Proposed addition to the Official List of Generic Names (Elwood C. Zimmerman and N. D. Riley) 186 Neolycaena DeNiceville, 1890 (Insecta, Lepidoptera): Proposed designation a of type-species under the plenary powers (C. F. Cowan) .. .. 188 Anopheles errabundus (Swellengrebel, 1925) (Insecta, Diptera): Proposed suppression as a specific name under the plenary powers (J. A. Reid and J. Bonne-Wepster) ...... 190 Enithares Spinola, 1837 (Insecta, Hemiptera): Proposed use of the plenary powers to designate a type-species (I. Lansbury) 191

Comments Comment on the proposals relating to Miris and miridae (Insecta, Hemiptera)

(T. Jaczewski) ...... 131

Support for suppression of Xyleborus Bowdich, 1825 (D. E. Bright) .. .. 132 Comments on the proposed suppression of Anopheles africanus Theobald,

1901 (P. F. Mattingly; J. A. Reid) ...... 132 Comments on the proposals regarding chrysopinae in Neuroptera and Diptera

(D. E. Kimmins; F. M. Carpenter) ...... 132 Comments on the proposal to reject Mitra perlata [Roding], 1798 (H. A.

Rehder; J. M. Cate) ...... 133 Conservation de Thereva subcoleoptrata (F. 1798) comme type de Phasia

Latreille, 1804 (Insecta, Diptera) (C. Dupuis) ...... 134 Alternative to the request for a Declaration against the suppression of nomina

dubia (Hobart M. Smith) ...... 145 Comment on the request for action on the name Voluta mitra Linnaeus, 1758

(Gastropoda) (H. A. Rehder; Myra Keen) ...... 146 Comment on proposal to suppress four Richardson fish names (W. L. Chan) 146 Comment on the proposed suppression of three nomina oblita in the family belonidae (G. F. Mees) 149

Support for the suppression of Truncatulina dumblei Applin (E. R. Applin) .. 185

© 1966. The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature Printed in England by Staples Printers Limited at their Kettering, Northants, establishment

Original from and digitized by National University of Singapore Libraries